MitD XV: The Other Dark One

[Keltest]

No


There is no conclusive evidence one way or the other and I'm not going to pretend there is. If you are trying to claim that Redcloak cannot be mistaken about the MiTD and are using that as an excuse to disqualify creatures, it's on you to prove that.

Im sorry, you link a quote of Redcloak directly stating what i said he did, and you consider it proof that he... didnt say the thing that you just quoted him saying?

[catagent101]

Redcloak canonically voiced his incredulity of the MiTD being able to animate dead. That does not make MiTD canonically unable to do so.

Assuming I understand you correctly, you arguing for is for us not to take account of that scene altogether regarding MiTD's abilities to raise undead. The problem with such an argument is that the simplest explanation for that scene is that MiTD does not have that ability. If I say "when pigs fly" I am not implying pigs are capable of flight. If a candidate that is a good fit does have such capabilities, there are alternate explanations of course (see OP), but what fits the scene best is if MiTD doesn't have that ability in the first place. If a candidate does not allow us to take a scene at face value, that is a flaw with the candidate, and also the primary way we have of determining flaws.

[Quartz]

...no, see, the Xenocrysth is not a character from another comic.

I know that: I was commenting only on the grammar.

[Ruck]

Im sorry, you link a quote of Redcloak directly stating what i said he did, and you consider it proof that he... didnt say the thing that you just quoted him saying?

There's no convincing him because he's not trying to reach an evidence-based conclusion but a feelings-based one.

Indeed. The one thing MitD brings to the team that no-one else does is his strength. Sure, even if he does have access to magic-like abilities, RC and Xykon both have access to those as well, and trust themselves more than they trust MitD. It is therefore not surprising that RC doesn't bother to try to exploit that aspect of MitD. First, obviously, because MitD is not reliable. But even if he was, RC can simply cast the SLA himself. Which is not to say RC wouldn't realise MitD did teleport someone if he did it in his presence.

If, on the other hand, massive, undirectable strength is called for, neither RC nor Xykon can provide it, and that's the kind of ace in the hole Xykon might be thinking of: when an enemy team has prepared to battle magic-heavy, combat-light team, he can reveal that he has a combat-heavy member they didn't know about waiting in the shadows, and maybe turn the combat around.

Grey Wolf

I really expect MiTD to be a heavy for these reasons. He thinks of himself as a big dumb brute, they think of him as a big dumb brute. O'chul thinks he has hidden depths, but implied in that assessment is that on the surface he seems like a big dumb brute.

It also makes sense for the world meta- it's a thematically balanced trio of foes in a world that tends to adhere to thematic and structural balance that is a calling card of D&D. An evil D&D trio usually has a tank, a support caster, and a damage dealer. We have the support caster and the damage dealer as known quantities; in the OOTS world that third mystery being will probably fill the tank slot because it is tidy storytelling, and the OOTS world is a very tidy one.

None of this is really 'evidence' in the sense this forum typically requires. It doesn't actually rule out say the amnesiac sorcerer worm that walks (just because it's the last thing suggested) who maybe *could* do all the things MiTD does. It would just be a surprising deviation from some of the core features of the story, the way characters treat him, and the world it takes place in if he's not a physical-combat-oriented opponent with a handful of innate spell-like abilities.

Much like with the Tower scene, though, I think it suggests that the higher a creature's strength is, the better fit it is as the species of MITD.

[3Power]

Im sorry, you link a quote of Redcloak directly stating what i said he did, and you consider it proof that he... didnt say the thing that you just quoted him saying?

What it can do. != You could kill them all if you wanted. You are stretching a statement beyond what it actually means.

Killing them all is one thing it could do, not all of them.

Assuming I understand you correctly, you arguing for is for us not to take account of that scene altogether regarding MiTD's abilities to raise undead. The problem with such an argument is that the simplest explanation for that scene is that MiTD does not have that ability. If I say "when pigs fly" I am not implying pigs are capable of flight. If a candidate that is a good fit does have such capabilities, there are alternate explanations of course (see OP), but what fits the scene best is if MiTD doesn't have that ability in the first place. If a candidate does not allow us to take a scene at face value, that is a flaw with the candidate, and also the primary way we have of determining flaws.

Occam's razor is more useful in situations where degrees of complexity are a bit more spread out. Here the possibilities are that Redcloak knows the sum of MiTD's abilities and is incredulous because he knows he's full of it, or he doesn't know and is incredulous because MiTD made a claim that doesn't match his preconceptions. Personally I feel the later option fits more with both Redcloak's characterization as someone who reacts poorly when his conceptions are challenged and MiTD's ongoing theme of being more than what team evil sees him as.

[Jasdoif]

Yes, speaking of this:

"The current best fits are the Xenocrysth, a character from another comic, and the protean."
vs
"The current best fits are the Xenocrysth, a character from another comic and the protean."

Oxford commas: sometimes, they increase ambiguity.

This particular example comes down to how it's not a wholly consistent list: The middle item is a description, while the outer items are names; so the middle item looks like an appositive describing the name before it when it's surrounded by commas (the latter of which is an Oxford comma). You'd have less confusion using the proper name "carbosilicate amorph" instead...and put "a character from another comic" in parentheses immediately after it if that's the point being made.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This particular example comes down to how it's not a wholly consistent list: The middle item is a description, while the outer items are names; so the middle item looks like an appositive describing the name before it when it's surrounded by commas (the latter of which is an Oxford comma). You'd have less confusion using the proper name "carbosilicate amorph" instead...and put "a character from another comic" in parentheses immediately after it if that's the point being made.

You do realise that the exact same objection can be levelled at the classic oxford comma example ("This book is dedicated to my parents, Elan and Roy"), right? That if this hypothetical person mentioned first their parents by name rather than purely as a descriptor, then add it in parenthesis ("This book is dedicated to Anna and Bill (my parents), Elan and Roy"), the ambiguity would also be gone?

The point of the example is not to suggest that one or the other style are "correct", it is to showcase both can create ambiguity that is best resolved by using something other than a comma as a delimiter in a list. Whether you should use parenthesis, dashes, avoid mixing descriptors with proper nouns or anything else is up to the specific example.

Grey Wolf

[Tvtyrant]

You do realise that the exact same objection can be levelled at the classic oxford comma example ("I want to thank my parents, Any Rand and God"), right? That if this hypothetical person mentioned their parents by name rather than purely as a descriptor, then it in parenthesis ("I want to thank Anna and Bill (my parents), Ayn Rand and God"), the ambiguity would also be gone?

The point of the example is not to suggest that one or the other style are "correct", it is to showcase both can create ambiguity that is best resolved by using something other than a comma as a delimiter in a list. Whether you should use parenthesis, dashes or anything else is up to the specific example.

Grey Wolf

I prefer "I want to thank my parents Ayn, Rand, and God." Grammatically much smoother.

[Jasdoif]

You do realise that the exact same objection can be levelled at the classic oxford comma example ("This book is dedicated to my parents, Any Rand and God"), right? That if this hypothetical person mentioned their parents by name rather than purely as a descriptor, then it in parenthesis ("This book is dedicated to Anna and Bill (my parents), Ayn Rand and God"), the ambiguity would also be gone?

That would deprive me of the opportunity to seriously use the word "appositive" for the first time since middle school, though.

[Quartz]

With regard to Oona knowing what the Monster is, we should not rule out the possibility that Redcloak told her.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I prefer "I want to thank my parents Ayn, Rand, and God." Grammatically much smoother.

Ok, that got a good two and a half chuckles out of me.

That would deprive me of the opportunity to seriously use the word "appositive" for the first time since middle school, though.

Fair.

With regard to Oona knowing what the Monster is, we should not rule out the possibility that Redcloak told her.

That'd still require her to look up the information on the standard class size, though. I can't imagine RC saying something like "this is MitD, a xenocrysth, who are usually a dwarf Gargantuan". The species name, yes, but not something like his expected size category. Maybe he lent her the manuals as part of the friendship building phase?

Grey Wolf

[Throknor]

Yes, speaking of this:

"The current best fits are the Xenocrysth, a character from another comic, and the protean."
vs
"The current best fits are the Xenocrysth, a character from another comic and the protean."

Oxford commas: sometimes, they increase ambiguity.
(I am not suggesting those three are the actual best fits - the example just works best with a list of three)
Grey Wolf

You do realise that the exact same objection can be levelled at the classic oxford comma example ("This book is dedicated to my parents, Any Rand and God"), right? That if this hypothetical person mentioned first their parents by name rather than purely as a descriptor, then add it in parenthesis ("This book is dedicated to Anna and Bill (my parents), Ayn Rand and God"), the ambiguity would also be gone?

The point of the example is not to suggest that one or the other style are "correct", it is to showcase both can create ambiguity that is best resolved by using something other than a comma as a delimiter in a list. Whether you should use parenthesis, dashes, avoid mixing descriptors with proper nouns or anything else is up to the specific example.

Grey Wolf

I've never seen that example but I'm fairly certain I learned about commas long before I ever heard of Ayn Rand. If you are suggesting the parents are intended to be Ayn Rand and God then I'd suggest the proper punctuation to avoid ambiguity is a colon and the editor skipped the dedication page. To me using the oxford comma explicitly indicates a list of three entities and it's the lack of the comma that makes the sentence ambiguous.

"This book is dedicated to my parents: Ayn Rand and God" -- Clearly not a list.
"This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand, and God" -- Clearly a list.
"This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God" -- Could be either.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I've never seen that example but I'm fairly certain I learned about commas long before I ever heard of Ayn Rand. If you are suggesting the parents are intended to be Ayn Rand and God then I'd suggest the proper punctuation to avoid ambiguity is a colon and the editor skipped the dedication page. To me using the oxford comma explicitly indicates a list of three entities and it's the lack of the comma that makes the sentence ambiguous.

"This book is dedicated to my parents: Ayn Rand and God" -- Clearly not a list.
"This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand, and God" -- Clearly a list.
"This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God" -- Could be either.

Sigh.

"This book is dedicated to my parents, Elan and Roy" is a semi-classic example of a sentence that is ambiguous, and whose ambiguity is resolved by using the oxford comma.

"The current best fits are the Xenocrysth, a character from another comic, and the protean" is an example of a sentence that is made ambiguous by the usage of the oxford comma, and whose ambiguity is resolved by resorting to the standard "don't put a comma before the 'and'" usage.

Yes, as I have now said three times, I am perfectly aware that both sentences can also be reworked to be non-ambiguous by not using commas at all, amongst many other possible solutions. That is not the point of the examples.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Please avoid real-life religious figures (even in famous phrases).

[Malloon]

...no, see, the Xenocrysth is not a character from another comic. The dashes would be worse, going from "ambiguous" to "clearly saying the incorrect thing".

Not to mention defeating the purpose of demonstrating a situation in which the oxford comma introduces ambiguity, although I suppose Quartz did demonstrate the problem.

Just in case it needs to be spelled out: I do not have a problem with the Oxford comma per se - only with the idea that the Oxford comma is superior to omitting it. Both uses can increase ambiguity in certain circumstances.

GW

Then you should use dashes

"The current best fits are the Xenocrysth - a character from another comic - and the protean."

vs

"The current best fits are the Xenocrysth, a character from another comic, and the protean."

Parentheses also work.

Yes, speaking of this:

"The current best fits are the Xenocrysth, a character from another comic, and the protean."
vs
"The current best fits are the Xenocrysth, a character from another comic and the protean."

Oxford commas: sometimes, they increase ambiguity.
(I am not suggesting those three are the actual best fits - the example just works best with a list of three)
Grey Wolf

This particular example comes down to how it's not a wholly consistent list: The middle item is a description, while the outer items are names; so the middle item looks like an appositive describing the name before it when it's surrounded by commas (the latter of which is an Oxford comma). You'd have less confusion using the proper name "carbosilicate amorph" instead...and put "a character from another comic" in parentheses immediately after it if that's the point being made.

You do realise that the exact same objection can be levelled at the classic oxford comma example ("This book is dedicated to my parents, Elan and Roy"), right? That if this hypothetical person mentioned first their parents by name rather than purely as a descriptor, then add it in parenthesis ("This book is dedicated to Anna and Bill (my parents), Elan and Roy"), the ambiguity would also be gone?

The point of the example is not to suggest that one or the other style are "correct", it is to showcase both can create ambiguity that is best resolved by using something other than a comma as a delimiter in a list. Whether you should use parenthesis, dashes, avoid mixing descriptors with proper nouns or anything else is up to the specific example.

Grey Wolf

I prefer "I want to thank my parents Ayn, Rand, and God." Grammatically much smoother.

That would deprive me of the opportunity to seriously use the word "appositive" for the first time since middle school, though.

I've never seen that example but I'm fairly certain I learned about commas long before I ever heard of Ayn Rand. If you are suggesting the parents are intended to be Ayn Rand and God then I'd suggest the proper punctuation to avoid ambiguity is a colon and the editor skipped the dedication page. To me using the oxford comma explicitly indicates a list of three entities and it's the lack of the comma that makes the sentence ambiguous.

"This book is dedicated to my parents: Ayn Rand and God" -- Clearly not a list.
"This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand, and God" -- Clearly a list.
"This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God" -- Could be either.

Chaos follows in my wake! MWAHAHAHAHAHA! My newly chosen Patron Loki would be proud.


In all seriousness, brevity is wit, and I'm not going to list all the possible cases of semantic ambiguity in my signature. That would break the rules, among other things. "Missing Oxford commas" just slides off the tongue better than "superfluous and misleading Oxford commas". If both lead to ambiguity, rearrange the items or otherwise rewrite the sentence. Semicolons are your distant relative who's still fun to be around even though you only see them during special occasions and who might have once made out with your ex, but they didn't know that at the time and they apologised and I've completely lost the thread of this metaphor.

The point is: Grammar isn't that hard, people, if you pay attention.

[Peelee]

The point is: Grammar isn't that hard, people, if you pay attention.

Less clunky if you move "people" to the end of the sentence.

[Tvtyrant]

Less clunky if you move "people" to the end of the sentence.

Or if you are doing a Christopher Walkens impression the front. "People, Grammar, isn't that, hard, if you pay attention."

[Throknor]

Sigh.

"This book is dedicated to my parents, Elan and Roy" is a semi-classic example of a sentence that is ambiguous, and whose ambiguity is resolved by using the oxford comma.

Grey Wolf

My apologies. Somehow I thought you were arguing the oxford comma would make the sentence more ambiguous. Even the article I found googling your example was ambiguous on which way was believed to be ambiguous. But that's what I get for perusing quickly at work.

To bring us closer to on topic, it's ambiguous what the MITD's position on the oxford comma is as he rarely lists two things, let alone three.

[Keltest]

The English Language: Its not hard, just stupid.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The English Language: Its not hard, just stupid.

Having struggled to learn it and/or use it for most of my life, I can assure you that those two characteristics are not mutually exclusive.

GW

[Spirare]

To bring us closer to on topic, it's ambiguous what the MITD's position on the oxford comma is as he rarely lists two things, let alone three.

Goblins invented the oxford comma too.

OQ.

[Keltest]

Having struggled to learn it and/or use it for most of my life, I can assure you that those two characteristics are not mutually exclusive.

GW

Just follow us americans in ignoring all the rules and brute forcing it. If anybody calls you out on it, just pretend youre making fun of the English.

[Crusher]

Or if you are doing a Christopher Walkens impression the front. "People, Grammar, isn't that, hard, if you pay attention."

Or a Yoda-ism: Grammar, hard it is not, people, if you pay attention.

[Peelee]

Yoda-ism

The proper term is anastrophe, if anyone was wondering.

[Hardcore]

Just follow us americans in ignoring all the rules and brute forcing it. If anybody calls you out on it, just pretend youre making fun of the English.

Eh, the natives will see through the attempt and just think we are stupid. That is ok with me. I am just happy I don't sound like Apu when I speak.

[Charybdis136]

Eh, the natives will see through the attempt and just think we are stupid. That is ok with me. I am just happy I don't sound like Apu when I speak.

Well if you have an accent then someone like me would show you more understanding and not correct your language. Anyone who learns it as a second language I will never correct unless the person wants me to. I am much more critical of someone who grew up using English who still makes really bad mistakes. Like I will correct my friends when they completely misuse a work or text me a word and butcher it. If you grew up in the US speaking English and have no idea when to use there, their, and they're, I get a little upset. (Improper use of commas does not bother me as long as the meaning is clear due to context).

[Hardcore]

Well if you have an accent then someone like me would show you more understanding and not correct your language. Anyone who learns it as a second language I will never correct unless the person wants me to. I am much more critical of someone who grew up using English who still makes really bad mistakes. Like I will correct my friends when they completely misuse a work or text me a word and butcher it. If you grew up in the US speaking English and have no idea when to use there, their, and they're, I get a little upset. (Improper use of commas does not bother me as long as the meaning is clear due to context).

I wouldn't be surprised if linguists think those words will merge eventually, or at least get a common spelling. Think of it as caused by languages evolutionary tendencies rather than common folk stupidity. That makes it easier 😉
What annoys me a little in English usage is beginning sentences with the word 'But'. I am not sure why. Maybe because it is wrong in Swedish too?

[Peelee]

I wouldn't be surprised if linguists think those words will merge eventually, or at least get a common spelling. Think of it as caused by languages evolutionary tendencies rather than common folk stupidity. That makes it easier 😉
What annoys me a little in English usage is beginning sentences with the word 'But'. I am not sure why. Maybe because it is wrong in Swedish too?

But it can't be wrong in Swedish "too" if it's not wrong in English.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I wouldn't be surprised if linguists think those words will merge eventually, or at least get a common spelling. Think of it as caused by languages evolutionary tendencies rather than common folk stupidity. That makes it easier 😉
What annoys me a little in English usage is beginning sentences with the word 'But'. I am not sure why. Maybe because it is wrong in Swedish too?

I can't speak for Swedish grammar standards, but English does allow you to start sentences with "but". I cannot as easily track the source of the idea you cannot as I can for, say, "split infinitives are wrong", but it feels like the sort of "rule" that is taught in schools as a cautionary measure, and that time and limited understanding of the reasons for it morphs it into "you can't" when it was meant as "you shouldn't overdo it".

I was lucky with this one because as I grew older, one of the English teaching methods I was subject to was writing essays - one a week, for something like ten years. So we were constantly given reinforcing lessons on how to properly write in English, and a lot of those "rules" that we learnt when children were explained to us to be a lot more nuanced when we became older.

Bottom line: be sure to always split infinitives, when the situation calls for it.

Grey Wolf

[Qwertystop]

I can't speak for Swedish grammar standards, but English does allow you to start sentences with "but". I cannot as easily track the source of the idea you cannot as I can for, say, "split infinitives are wrong", but it feels like the sort of "rule" that is taught in schools as a cautionary measure, and that time and limited understanding of the reasons for it morphs it into "you can't" when it was meant as "you shouldn't overdo it".

I was lucky with this one because as I grew older, one of the English teaching methods I was subject to was writing essays - one a week, for something like ten years. So we were constantly given reinforcing lessons on how to properly write in English, and a lot of those "rules" that we learnt when children were explained to us to be a lot more nuanced when we became older.

Bottom line: be sure to always split infinitives, when the situation calls for it.

Grey Wolf

As far as I recall, the bit about split infinitives was from when grammar prescriptivists were trying to make "proper" English as much like Latin as possible, and Latin didn't allow it?