MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

[Darakonis]

Regarding the Ghour...

Challenge rating 12. I thought we were looking for a CR of at least 20? (Sure, templates can up the CR, but I'm firmly against any complex template theories).

As a D&D player, a CR 12 monster is practically laughable at the OotS' level.
For someone like Xykon, it would be a mosquito, and definitely not worthy of his "big reveal."

Peace
-Darakonis

[hamishspence]

The Ghour has been updated to 3.5. Twice. Once in the Players Guide to Faerun web enhancement (which updates all 3.0 Faerun monsters to 3.5) and once in Lost Empires of Faerun.

And in both, it has DR 15/good.

[Optimystik]

To quote: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Indicate does not suggest tentativeness. Neither does present tense. But this is now a discussion about English language, which I have no interest in.

No, it suggests uncertainty. I believe it is you using words incorrectly, not me.

Moving on to the Ghour - I don't think the MitD will be a demon, and I definitely don't think it will be anything setting-specific (i.e. from Faerun.)

[Lord Bingo]

I recognize that the Ghour is relatively weak challenge level wise but that does not change the fact that apart from the ability to cause earthquakes the Ghour does everything we want it to, even if it's damage reduction is a little too weak.

We don't know for certain that Belkar carries magical daggers but I'll concede that since we know Haley carries a magical bow it is highly probable.

I'm not knowledgeable about the reproductive habits of demons so I'll have to look into that, but if they are generally not the offspring of procreative activities that would certainly be a problem. I do, however know of at least one demon -the Draegloth- which is created by the unholy union between an ascending high priestess of the drow goddess Lolth and a Glabrezu. Unfortunately I can find no reference to how the Ghour come into being.

[Lord Bingo]

in⋅di⋅cate 
–verb (used with object), -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing.
1. to be a sign of; betoken; evidence; show

[Darakonis]

Lord Bingo, how do you reconcile the low challenge rating, though? I agree that it otherwise fits the bill fairly well, but the challenge rating is a deal breaker for me.

Regarding the "indicate" discussion, I think a more appropriate word for what Optimystik meant was "suggest." "Indicate" does seem much more definite in statement, but this is semantics -- we all now understand what Optimystik meant.

Peace
-Darakonis

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I recognize that the Ghour is relatively weak challenge level wise but that does not change the fact that apart from the ability to cause earthquakes the Ghour does everything we want it to, even if it's damage reduction is a little too weak.

No, it doesn't. The first thing that MitD is, regardless of any other consideration, is being a challenge to the heroes: Rich said as much in the commentaries. CR12 is barely a challenge for the party around the start of the strip, and now that their levels range between 12 and 16 it wouldn't really pose a challenge at all.

And again, if for whatever reason MitD is a stunted Ghour, why would it be as strong as if he had been full size? It is either too big, or too weak, and there really is no way around that.

We don't know for certain that Belkar carries magical daggers but I'll concede that since we know Haley carries a magical bow it is highly probable.

A quick check of the class and level geekery thread tells me that they do indeed think that Belkar carries magical daggers; I do not follow the thread, though, so I am not privy to the logic behind their assertion. That said, Belkar is a very competent damage dealer. If he was still using non-magical daggers, he wouldn't be.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html

"Plus, your furry-footed friend just made me his temporary magic dagger repository"

[Kish]

No, it doesn't. The first thing that MitD is, regardless of any other consideration, is being a challenge to the heroes: Rich said as much in the commentaries. CR12 is barely a challenge for the party around the start of the strip, and now that their levels range between 12 and 16 it wouldn't really pose a challenge at all.

Not to mention Xykon and Redcloak expecting him to beat up an ancient silver dragon.

[Lord Bingo]

Lord Bingo, how do you reconcile the low challenge rating, though? I agree that it otherwise fits the bill fairly well, but the challenge rating is a deal breaker for me.

Admittedly CR was not on the forefront of my mind when I happened upon the Ghour. So in answer of your question: I cannot reconcile the low CR If this breaks the deal then the Ghour is of our list.

"Plus, your furry-footed friend just made me his temporary magic dagger repository"

I missed that one Belkar carries magical daggers. No doubt about it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Admittedly CR was not on the forefront of my mind when I happened upon the Ghour. So in answer of your question: I cannot reconcile the low CR If this breaks the deal then the Ghour is of our list.

Nah, not off the list. But not in the forerunners, either. I will add a section on the power level of MitD in the next update, I think, but I'd say that CR18 at the very minimum. That would fit with the rest of Team Evil: RC is 15+ - likely higher - and of course Xykon is epic - 27 (!) or more, according to the other thread.

Grey Wolf

[Darakonis]

Honestly, I seriously thought the MitD was a grue for a while. I no longer believe this to be the case, but here was my reasoning...

All this is based on the wikipedia entry for the grue, which heavily references the Zork games and lore.

First, to address the counter-argument, "The theory that it's a grue is roughly comparable to using an unknown creature's constant longing for garlic as evidence that it's a vampire."

Humans smoke, eat junk food, have a desire for foods they are allergic to, partake in death-defying activities for fun... Why can't a fictional creature be attracted to something that isn't in his best health interest? Especially when said creature seems to differ in many ways from others of its kind?

Furthermore, the effects that light has on a grue are inconsistent in the lore, and:

some games imply that grues find levels of light ordinary for humans to be intolerably, blindingly painful but can nonetheless survive it (such as in Planetfall, where an obviously grue-like creature exists in a lit laboratory, "squinting and cursing at the light").

In 3.0 D&D, orcs have an aversion to sunlight, suffering a -1 penalty to attack rolls in bright sunlight, yet we see them operate during the day all the time.

Arguably, a grue's severe aversion to light may be attributed to living its entire life in darkness -- however if one were raised in the twilight under a forest canopy, it may be less averse to light than others of its kind...

***

Addressing the Section 2 Physical Characteristics of GW's initial post in this thread.

Age: Nothing about grues covers age or maturity, so there are no contradictions to be made here. It was, however, noted that baby grues do exist, and that they have parents:

Wishbringer allows the player to stumble upon a baby grue and get a good look at it before its parents return

Appearance: Contrary to what has been said in this thread, grues are not invisible, and have been seen in Zork lore. It has been said to have:

"slavering fangs", "razor-sharp claws"

and appear to be a:

"horrible, multi-fanged creature"

and have:

a fish-mouthed head, razor-sharp claws and [...] fur all over

A baby grue was described as:

"horrid little beast with red eyes and slavering fangs"

Furthermore:

grues' eyes give off a very small amount of light

I have no response to why some would describe a grue as "beautiful," other than corrective eye surgery was not yet invented...

Body: The grue has a body, and is not some ethereal presence in the darkness as others suggested.

Diet: The most iconic phrase attached to grues is:

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Furthermore:

Its favorite diet is adventurers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of light.

The MitD is constantly hungry and has no qualms with eating adult people.

Gender: Grues likely have genders, since they have parents:

Wishbringer allows the player to stumble upon a baby grue and get a good look at it before its parents return

Limbs: As stated above, grues have claws, and thus likely have limbs. Furthermore, it must be quite difficult to manipulate small objects like crayons or pull ropes with claws.

Head: As stated above, grues have eyes and a fish-mouthed head. Although the eyes are stated as being red, not every human has the same eye color, and red eyes may simply be in the baby stage.

Maturity: Nothing is known of the aging/maturation of grues, so nothing contradicts here.

Size: Nothing is stated about the size of grues, though they do need to fit in dungeon corridors, which likely restricts them to Large.

Sleep: Nothing is mentioned about the sleep cycle of grues, so no contradictions here.

To sum up Appearance: the main issue is that some described the MitD as "beautiful."

***

Addressing the Section 2 Abilities of GW's initial post:

The powers of the grue are not defined, however they are known to be deadly -- people rarely survive encounters with grues. Just because you are "likely to be eaten by a grue," doesn't exclude that you may first by stomped or clawed or etc. Rich has a lot of leeway here. Since grues are inexplicably never cornered by adventurers with torches, they likely possess some form of teleportation ability, and since this ability is not from a D&D book, there are no restrictions on its use.

I will address Speech:

Grues have been known to:

[gurgle] in agony and [tear] at its fur (when exposed to light)

Furthermore, grues make:

gurgling and growling (...) [sounds]

which could imply that they do not normally speak common.

***

Addressing the Section 2 Other Characteristics of GW's initial post:

Categories and Drawing Clues do not need to be addressed.

Environment: Grues typically exist in pitch darkness. A jungle would be an odd place to find a grue -- though note that jungles are not bright, shiny places, due to the dense canopies that block most sunlight from reaching the ground.

Family: As stated above, grues do have parents.

Knowledge of MitD: Since grues are rarely seen, most people would not recognize one.

Species: There's no shortage of grues.

Mental Resistance: Needn't be addressed.

***

Summary

The grue's two most defining characteristics are:

- Insatiable appetite
- Remains in darkness

That's how I would grossly define the MitD, apart from adding something about his childlike innocence/behavior -- which, again, seems to be aberrant to most creatures of its type. Further, the desire to remain in darkness is irrelevant -- for 700 strips, the monster has remained in darkness, and we call it the Monster in the Darkness.


I'm not trying to convince anyone that the MitD is a grue. I am trying to convince you that a grue is not as stupid a theory as some would have you believe. Grues have a rich history in gaming, even appearing in older versions of D&D, and if Rich chose to make the MitD a grue, he would be paying homage to a tongue-in-cheek creature that made every gamer in the 80s fear the darkness.


Peace
-Darakonis

[Kish]

Humans smoke, eat junk food, have a desire for foods they are allergic to, partake in death-defying activities for fun... Why can't a fictional creature be attracted to something that isn't in his best health interest?

The point, is that the entire argument for him being a grue hinges on something imposed from without: him being kept in constant darkness. By Xykon and Redcloak. For the time he's been with them. Grues--in your own quotes--are described as fearing and avoiding light, but that's a side issue. The main issue is that the darkness the creature in the darkness is kept in is in no way a personality trait of his.

Your argument also completely ignores the teleportation and (now) the ability to recognize Tsukiko's ritual as half a ritual, leaving a grue with the same problems as a tarrasque--and a comparable (read: close to nonexistent) amount of evidence in favor, too. And when did grues appear in D&D? (Which book?) To my knowledge, they're only found in Zork. They could theoretically be massively damage-resistant and strong enough to knock Miko and Windstriker through walls and cause earthquakes because they have no D&D stats, not because they do have stats and those stats include damage resistance and 30+ Strength.

[lio45]

Nah, not off the list. But not in the forerunners, either. I will add a section on the power level of MitD in the next update, I think, but I'd say that CR18 at the very minimum. That would fit with the rest of Team Evil: RC is 15+ - likely higher - and of course Xykon is epic - 27 (!) or more, according to the other thread.

Grey Wolf

Xykon has given me the impression that he considers MitD to have a higher CR than himself... Do you all agree?

Xykon never stated it that clearly, but the sum of his actions and comments about MitD do give me that feeling.

For example, it makes no sense saying something like "You cannot possibly win against my team when I have got THIS on my side!" if the monster you're referring to is weaker than yourself...

Another point against the black slaad is that I don't believe it would make anyone puke or get sick.

The speech thing, though, is in fact a positive, IMO. We know MitD DOES speak, and in Common. I find the idea that MitD is a creature that normally speaks, and that the BGHs don't know absolutely everything about every monster, is in fact way simpler and more appealing to me than the possibility that MitD is a creature that normally cannot speak but actually does speak.

Think about it: what we do here is look at MitD characteristics and select monsters that match them, right? Well, MitD speaks, and in Common no less.

Instead of treating this like any other observed characteristic, we're doing the opposite -- looking for a monster which isn't supposed to speak. Why not assume instead that the BGHs aren't necessarily absolute experts on what exactly a rare and epic monster they're very surprised to see can do or cannot do?

[Darakonis]

The point, is that the entire argument for him being a grue hinges on something imposed from without: him being kept in constant darkness. By Xykon and Redcloak. For the time he's been with them. Grues--in your own quotes--are described as fearing and avoiding light, but that's a side issue. The main issue is that the darkness the creature in the darkness is kept in is in no way a personality trait of his.

Your argument also completely ignores the teleportation and (now) the ability to recognize Tsukiko's ritual as half a ritual, leaving a grue with the same problems as a tarrasque--and a comparable (read: close to nonexistent) amount of evidence in favor, too. And when did grues appear in D&D? (Which book?) To my knowledge, they're only found in Zork. They could theoretically be massively damage-resistant and strong enough to knock Miko and Windstriker through walls and cause earthquakes because they have no D&D stats, not because they do have stats and those stats include damage resistance and 30+ Strength.

Being in the darkness is not a personality trait of a grue, either.

Imposed or not, it is one of MitD most defining characteristics -- so defining that it is part of his name. Perhaps Xykon and/or RC keep him in the darkness because, apart from the whole "big reveal," they know it is the habitat in which such a creature thrives best. Frankly, I would rather two intelligent BBEGs have a better reason for constantly keeping the MitD in the dark other than the "big reveal."

I did not ignore the teleportation. I addressed it, specifically:

Since grues are inexplicably never cornered by adventurers with torches, they likely possess some form of teleportation ability, and since this ability is not from a D&D book, there are no restrictions on its use.

Grues made a short-lived appearance in D&D in the 1980s. I cannot cite a specific book, but I am not making this up -- everything is from the wiki entry.

Further, Rich never claimed the MitD can be found in a D&D book, nor that it has statistics that measure its powers. Are we ruling out all creatures that are not present in rulebooks on the basis that we cannot numerically measure their DR or STR?

Grues are basically known to be death sentences for adventurers. Extreme strength and damage reduction can simply be ways of displaying to the reader how powerful of a creature it is -- before that, we only had Xykon's and RC's word.


Again, I do not believe the MitD is a grue. I believe the MitD is a creature from a 3e D&D source book. Nor do I claim that there is a bullet-proof argument for the MitD to be a grue: I'm simply saying that I believe it's a theory that is just as valid (or more so) than some of the ones we've seen in the first post.

Peace
-Darakonis

[Kish]

I'm simply saying that I believe it's a theory that is just as valid (or more so) than some of the ones we've seen in the first post.

Oh, quite. But, the first post is meant to be an exhaustive list of everything that anyone has ever suggested, I believe. Grue is there already. Avoiding light by their own choice is very much a personality trait of a grue, and very much not in evidence here.

I'd say, as a theory, "grue" is at around the same level as "tarrasque." I don't think that's a good level. Given that we agree the creature in the darkness is not a grue, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Do you want it promoted to Forerunners even though you don't think he's a grue?

Sorry I missed the teleportation reference in your post. Recognizing the ritual still doesn't fit (for a grue, or for a tarrasque), though.

[Darakonis]

I'd say, as a theory, "grue" is at around the same level as "tarrasque."

I agree!

That's why I'd like it promoted from "one-off" [Ideas that have been proposed, but no-one (sometimes not even the poster proposing it) was particularly attached to them] to the tarrasque's level :) A forerunner, surely not, but it deserves more respect than it's getting ^^

Although, whereas a tarrasque is an impossibility, I do not believe the grue to be an impossibility. An improbability, yes. But the grue's nebulous nature is both a strength and a weakness -- you cannot prove it is a grue, but you cannot disprove it either. It's Rich's ace in the hole-- if we figure out what the MitD is prematurely, he can always just change it to a grue in the end ;)

Peace
-Darakonis

EDIT: Why don't my smileys turn into smileys :(

[Math_Mage]

EDIT: Why don't my smileys turn into smileys :(

Because the smileys key off tags like : smallfrown : and : smallbiggrin : (spaces added) rather than :D, :), :P, :( etc.

[Sereg]

I feel the necessity to comment. It is true that grues were statted in 2nd ed. However, it is not true that they were never updated to 3.5. They were. In Complete Arcane. One should know, however, that D&D grues are very different from Zork grues. It is possible that the MiTD is a grue with a mix of characteristics from both, which, while unlikely, wouldn't be a bad fit.

D&D grues are elementals. Therefore, it would have to be an earth grue (chaggrin) to have a solid body. Also, this fits with the "rock joke" and makes earthquake less of a stretch. They are described as liking to eat the blood of prime material creatures. They aren't described as having an aversion to light. Grues also contain "spell objects" which could explain MiTD's understanding of magic. They are medium to large in size. Unfortunately they have a CR of...wait for it...2. And not much in the way of other apropriate powers. Still, as I said, it could have characteristics of Zork grues. The other issue is that they are always NE, but that could be less of a problem as they're from an elemental, not a morality plane.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Xykon has given me the impression that he considers MitD to have a higher CR than himself... Do you all agree?
<snip>

No, I don't agree. Xykon is an egomaniac. He is not the kind to suffer creatures more stronger than he is, because they could conceivably decide to take over.

Furthermore, your main point is that it wouldn't make sense to reveal a monster weaker than he is. On the contrary, this makes a fairly good logical sense. The adventuring parties that reach Xykon have to know they are about to meet a lich. As such, they will be prepared to face a powerful undead sorcerer. There are ways, and strategies, to handle a fight such at that, I'm sure: spells they can cast, actions they can take to beat Xykon.

BUT, if at the last moment, Xykon reveals a powerful monster that is very different in his fighting abilities from that of himself - an enormously strong, epic-level monster like the Protean - that changes the fight completely. The adventuring party's careful strategy is now out of the window, and the rough-and-ready approach to fights that Xykon prefers (blast them with spells, and sort out the dead at the end) is suddenly much more likely to succeed. For this to work, MitD doesn't have to be more powerful than Xykon, only more powerful than the adventuring party, which now has to face two high level monsters, different enough they can't neutralize them both (as an example, if they were thinking of using spheres of silence to prevent spellcasting, that would not help with MitD - and maybe those spheres had taken over spell slots that would normally have spells that would be helpful in a fight against whatever MitD is).

Another point against the black slaad is that I don't believe it would make anyone puke or get sick.

It's a ugly humanoid toad. Not exatly pleasant on the eyes. That said, size-wise, I'm far more liking the white one (does the white one still have teleportation?).

The speech thing, though, is in fact a positive, IMO. We know MitD DOES speak, and in Common. I find the idea that MitD is a creature that normally speaks, and that the BGHs don't know absolutely everything about every monster, is in fact way simpler and more appealing to me than the possibility that MitD is a creature that normally cannot speak but actually does speak.

Think about it: what we do here is look at MitD characteristics and select monsters that match them, right? Well, MitD speaks, and in Common no less.

Instead of treating this like any other observed characteristic, we're doing the opposite -- looking for a monster which isn't supposed to speak. Why not assume instead that the BGHs aren't necessarily absolute experts on what exactly a rare and epic monster they're very surprised to see can do or cannot do?

The short answer is that Stereotypical Big Game Hunters always know everything about what they hunt. The clue is precisely the stereotypical bit you left out; they are like Steve Irwins on steroids, finding every creature completely fascinating and knowing everything about them from the go.

The alternative argument is that Rich is giving us clues, and that scene feels like a lampshade hanging on the fact that MitD talks, but the creature type doesn't. Why put that in at all, otherwise?

I agree!

That's why I'd like it promoted from "one-off" [Ideas that have been proposed, but no-one (sometimes not even the poster proposing it) was particularly attached to them] to the tarrasque's level :) A forerunner, surely not, but it deserves more respect than it's getting ^^

Wait, now you want me to demote it from "proposed ideas" to "discarded ideas"? That's a step down! No, grue is fine where it is. Proposed, discussed, but not particularly good fit. But I'll reconsider it when we hit the next 0 number.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

It's a ugly humanoid toad. Not exatly pleasant on the eyes. That said, size-wise, I'm far more liking the white one (does the white one still have teleportation?).

Indeed it does.

[Darakonis]

Wait, now you want me to demote it from "proposed ideas" to "discarded ideas"? That's a step down! No, grue is fine where it is. Proposed, discussed, but not particularly good fit. But I'll reconsider it when we hit the next 0 number.

Ah, whoops. I guess I misinterpreted the order in which the categories were listed to represent a hierarchy. In that case, grue is fine where it is, but it would be nice to see the pros and cons like the other entries.

Peace
-Darakonis

[lio45]

The short answer is that Stereotypical Big Game Hunters always know everything about what they hunt.

Agreed, but they were in a jungle, so we know with certainty that MitD isn't "what they were hunting". (I don't know what those SBGHs were doing in that jungle, but it's clear they knew everything about the creatures they were expecting to capture there.)

Now, the fact that they DID know things about it is in itself a feat... put any random, out-of-place, rare monster in front of them, that they're not hunting at all at the moment (since it just popped out of nowhere in an environment that's not his), and they STILL can tell you several things about it? Wow. That's enough to qualify for being considered a Steve Irwin on steroids.

The alternative argument is that Rich is giving us clues, and that scene feels like a lampshade hanging on the fact that MitD talks, but the creature type doesn't. Why put that in at all, otherwise?

Well, because it sounds cool in the dialogue, for one.

Notice that they didn't say "how come it speaks, those aren't supposed to speak!" or anything like that.

They just pointed out that it was speaking, and that it was impressive/surprising.

If MitD is a very rare epic creature, which is likely, then I don't think expecting SBGHs to not know everything about it is such a stretch.

Regardless, it's either

1) assume the SBGHs weren't aware of the fact that a white slaad is supposed to speak

or

2) forget about the white slaad as a possibility.

What do you prefer, #1 or #2?
I'd pick #1...

FWIW,

But, if the hunters didn't expect something that looks like a big pale white humanoid toad to speak...

[Lord Bingo]

Is it too much of a stretch to simply grant that the STBG's know something about the monsters/creatures they hunt but not everything? I think not. Surely the point of being a STBG is to discover/uncover the nature of the beasts that surround us. They strive to know everything about every creature.
To me it is clear that the STBG's were indeed surprised that this creature can talk. This indicates that they take MitD for either of a type of creature which is not expected talk or that MitD looks similar to such a creature.

This, however, changes nothing regarding whether or not the Black/White Slaad fits the bill as MitD.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Notice that they didn't say "how come it speaks, those aren't supposed to speak!" or anything like that.

Errr... no, it is something like that. They say it is "unbelievable" it can talk, which indicates they do would not have believed it could talk, had they not heard him talk. I.e. "these" are not supposed to speak, or they would have believed it could.

Can this indicate it is a baby? Yes, certainly. A two-week old baby talking is "unbelievable". But so is a horse, for that matter. Or it could be, as Lord Bingo has pointed out, as have others before him, that it is a mimic creature of some kind, looking like something else that cannot talk.

But I'm not that ready to believe that the SBGH are just across-the-board ignorant and/or lying. They are too stereotypical for that. The only thing that scene is missing is a big neon sign pointing at MitD reading "This is a Clue!".

If MitD is a very rare epic creature, which is likely, then I don't think expecting SBGHs to not know everything about it is such a stretch.

Regardless, it's either

1) assume the SBGHs weren't aware of the fact that a white slaad is supposed to speak

or

2) forget about the white slaad as a possibility.

What do you prefer, #1 or #2?
I'd pick #1...

As arguments go, this is at the bottom of the barrel. Reminds me of Pascal's wager. I'm sorry, but my feelings about any of the proposed ideas do not weight on the evidence. Does that mean that, as I interpret the evidence, slaad is not a perfect fit? Certainly. I'll say it clearly: slaad is a good idea, but it has three minor things against it: it usually can talk, and thus it wouldn't be unbelievable it did so. It is difficult to understand how a creature that has existed for more than 200 years would have MitD's personality. And it might not be legal for Rich to use it.

But, compared against the kind of problems the other entires have, it will remain at the top of the list until someone else comes with a better idea. The best thing about the slaad is not that it is a perfect match, but that finally we have something that fits better than snorlax (and the masses rejoiced!).

Ah, whoops. I guess I misinterpreted the order in which the categories were listed to represent a hierarchy. In that case, grue is fine where it is, but it would be nice to see the pros and cons like the other entries.

Peace
-Darakonis

Please note that in most entries, I only list the cons, mostly because it is a lot of work otherwise. But since you requested it, I'll give the grue a full entry next time I update.

Grey Wolf

[Dragero]

Is he posibly a........half-giant (From EPH)? Wouldn`t be a legal issue, SRD material. Strong, psionic so he can teleport/whatever it`s called. Ugly.....maybe more...

He would have to be a high level to be powerfull, but w/e.

Also:

Anybody noticed that he says somthing like:

"Fine, but good luck reading half a spell/scroll/tablet" In one of the newer comics? That means he`s smart, or at least knows magic.

[Lord Bingo]

Or it could be, as Lord Bingo has pointed out, as have others before him, that it is a mimic creature of some kind, looking like something else that cannot talk.

But I'm not that ready to believe that the SBGH are just across-the-board ignorant and/or lying. They are too stereotypical for that. The only thing that scene is missing is a big neon sign pointing at MitD reading "This is a Clue!".

Actually what I meant is something that looks like one creature but really is another, not purposefully mimicing it. -like a Blink Dog which for all intends and purposes look like an ordinary dog until it all of a sudden disappears, or the various forms of Molds found in Dungeons.
This might be the reason that Red Cloak recognizes that MitD could kill everyone in the circus: because he recognized the subtleties that reveals what MitD really is.

Unfortunately this brings me no nearer to uncovering the truth of what MitD is. However, it does suggest that we might look for a creature that could easily be mistaken for something else by even experienced parties.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Actually what I meant is something that looks like one creature but really is another, not purposefully mimicing it. -like a Blink Dog which for all intends and purposes look like an ordinary dog until it all of a sudden disappears, or the various forms of Molds found in Dungeons.
This might be the reason that Red Cloak recognizes that MitD could kill everyone in the circus: because he recognized the subtleties that reveals what MitD really is.

Unfortunately this brings me no nearer to uncovering the truth of what MitD is. However, it does suggest that we might look for a creature that could easily be mistaken for something else by even experienced parties.

Yes, I understood you; I choose mimic on purpose, because it is an extension of what you said: it includes not just creatures that might be confused with another due to similar looks (e.g. nightmare/horse), but also creatures that purposedly change their shape to hide (e.g. the phoenix in Pratchett's Lords and Ladies). Either would sidestep the SBGH, although I doubt either case. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Grey Wolf

[Optimystik]

Is he posibly a........half-giant (From EPH)? Wouldn`t be a legal issue, SRD material. Strong, psionic so he can teleport/whatever it`s called. Ugly.....maybe more...

The hunters scupper this one too - it's not unbelievable that a half-giant could talk, it's odd for them to be hunting one (baby or otherwise) and they don't really count as "monsters."

[lio45]

No, I don't agree. Xykon is an egomaniac. He is not the kind to suffer creatures more stronger than he is, because they could conceivably decide to take over.

I completely disagree. IMO, Xykon loves power, and would certainly like it if he could control a creature stronger than himself and make it his minion.

We know there are creatures stronger than Xykon out there. So, should Xykon ever meet a creature stronger than him (a very real possibility), how do you think he would react? I absolutely believe he'd be "hmmm, how can I make this thing my minion", not "I like to be the most powerful in my own circle, I don't want this thing around me"

Also, did you actually just bring up that MitD "could conceivably decide to take over"? You're a funny guy.

(Just to make the point clear, the object of this part of the discussion is that I personally think we should consider in our search that Xykon's own CR is a lower boundary to MitD's.)

Furthermore, your main point is that it wouldn't make sense to reveal a monster weaker than he is.

Not exactly. My point was that the particular way Xykon wanted to reveal MitD kinda implies MitD is the strongest thing in the room by a fair bit. In my opinion, of course.

Moreover, there isn't only the reveal: there were also various other little bits of speech from Xykon out there that did contribute to reinforcing my belief that MitD > Xykon over those hundreds of comics, but I can't link to anything specific for now. The reveal was simply the first example that came to mind...

On the contrary, this makes a fairly good logical sense. The adventuring parties that reach Xykon have to know they are about to meet a lich. As such, they will be prepared to face a powerful undead sorcerer. There are ways, and strategies, to handle a fight such at that, I'm sure: spells they can cast, actions they can take to beat Xykon.

BUT, if at the last moment, Xykon reveals a powerful monster that is very different in his fighting abilities from that of himself - an enormously strong, epic-level monster like the Protean - that changes the fight completely. The adventuring party's careful strategy is now out of the window, and the rough-and-ready approach to fights that Xykon prefers (blast them with spells, and sort out the dead at the end) is suddenly much more likely to succeed. For this to work, MitD doesn't have to be more powerful than Xykon, only more powerful than the adventuring party, which now has to face two high level monsters, different enough they can't neutralize them both (as an example, if they were thinking of using spheres of silence to prevent spellcasting, that would not help with MitD - and maybe those spheres had taken over spell slots that would normally have spells that would be helpful in a fight against whatever MitD is).

That kind of planning would be very un-Xykon-like... very Redcloak, yes, but Xykon? Nah.

What actually makes sense for the stereotypical big bad villain is to possess an even bigger and badder minion, to be revealed at the proper time, i.e. the big final battle against the PCs. Now THAT would be behavior typical of the Xykon we know in the comic!

Errr... no, it is something like that. They say it is "unbelievable" it can talk, which indicates they do would not have believed it could talk, had they not heard him talk. I.e. "these" are not supposed to speak, or they would have believed it could.

Monsters generally don't speak Common. Unless you know for SURE that it's not supposed to speak Common, it will be very surprising to see it does.

Let's consider that the SBGHs have a list of the features they know for sure about this very rare epic monster that they're not hunting (which, as I said already, I would consider quite a feat of monster knowledge).

Consider that there are a few things on that list, but nothing regarding speech. (It's Large, it's got a CR of 32, it can Stomp, etc. but just nothing re: speech.)

You think that them being amazed at this monster speaking in Common wouldn't fit?

But I'm not that ready to believe that the SBGH are just across-the-board ignorant and/or lying. They are too stereotypical for that. The only thing that scene is missing is a big neon sign pointing at MitD reading "This is a Clue!".

No one ever asked you to "believe that the SBGH are just across-the-board ignorant and/or lying".

I consider that the SBGHs are very knowledgeable about monsters, yet don't know EVERY SINGLE THING about every monster in existence including epic ones that totally aren't supposed to be in the area where they're hunting.

So, I ask you to believe that the SBGHs are extremely knowledgeable about monsters, but that they are a bit short of possessing absolute universal monster knowledge.

I know it's a clue, and that's precisely why I'm trying to sweep that one clue under the rug, because this is a clue that 1) doesn't fit our favorite forerunner and 2) can be eliminated more or less easily (by simply assuming the SBGHs don't possess absolute ultimate knowledge, a not-so-unreasonable assumption).

I'll say it clearly: slaad is a good idea, but it has three minor things against it: it usually can talk, and thus it wouldn't be unbelievable it did so. It is difficult to understand how a creature that has existed for more than 200 years would have MitD's personality. And it might not be legal for Rich to use it.

Three minor things.

1) It usually can talk

I think this isn't a problem, and I've explained why. If I can manage to convince people, we might be able to get this one off the list.

2) It is difficult to understand how a creature that has existed for more than 200 years would have MitD's personality.

Really? I don't agree. A creature that has grown up in total isolation in a completely foreign environment is likely to have that personality, IMO, regardless of the number of years that passed. In his jungle situation, MitD wouldn't develop ANYTHING personality-wise in a typical year, just eat and get one year older. Repeat that 200+ times and you get current MitD.

3) And it might not be legal for Rich to use it.

Unless I'm mistaken, it would be just as legal as using this huecuva, right?
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html

I know MitD has way more exposure, but if it's a D&D monster, I'm almost sure it's fair game, though (I'm not a lawyer, of course).

Anyway, wouldn't the ideas of a Sorcerer Lich, a Goblin Cleric, etc. be just as legally protected as any D&D monster? Those, we know for sure are usable by Rich...

But, compared against the kind of problems the other entires have, it will remain at the top of the list until someone else comes with a better idea. The best thing about the slaad is not that it is a perfect match, but that finally we have something that fits better than snorlax (and the masses rejoiced!).

I agree that it's at the top of the list, and very promising, which is exactly the reason why I'm working for it, against you ;)