MitD XV: The Other Dark One

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's not that it could that's the issue, it's that it would breach the rules of engagement as percieved. Many feel said rules are 'unmodified published statblock'.

No, we do not. We follow the evidence. With explicit indication that MitD has no cleric levels, and no evidence he has any other kind of level, we draw the line at not assuming he has anything there is no evidence he has. Could Rich have decided MitD was an ugly goblin/minortaur/human/etc. with 20 levels of sorcerer? Sure, but then Rich would not assure us we can figure out that he is a goblin/minortaur/human/etc because at that point, all the clues are rendered useless by the fact they have class levels that have never been hinted at.

On another note, I think we've been assuming the circus scene might reflect a passive save-or-be-disgusted ability, but the children seem unaffected, and you'd assume they have a lower save bonus.

This is not true. The girl is clearly disgusted, probably about to throw up.

Grey Wolf

[Xhosant]

That's what I meant. I am, after all, one of the folks feeling that way.

I forget. Are the kids, on average, taking it better than the adults?

I still feel that scene is our best hint. Surely not many creatures can account for 'passive visual ability with a wide range of effects and acquired immunity' (in the revisiting goblins' case).

[Ruck]

Surely not many creatures can account for 'passive visual ability with a wide range of effects and acquired immunity' (in the revisiting goblins' case).

Indeed, few creatures could be plausibly grotesque, vomit-inducing, terrifying, fascinating, beautiful, unlike anything ever seen before, and something worth making repeated visits to see and cheer, all at once.

[monomer]

I was thinking about the Glabrezu, and noticed a couple of interesting things (This may have been brought this up before, though I don't recall seeing it).

In the fluff for the 2E version of the Glabrezu, it notes that Glabrezu communicate using telepathy. Since SoD is in the past, is it possible the MitD was a 2E version that then later changed to 3E?

Additionally, as early as 3E Draegloth are creatures that are created by the unholy union of a Glabrezu and a Drow high priestess, which shows that they can reproduce. Now whether they can definitively produce other Glabrezu is not stated anywhere that I have found, but this does show that they have the capacity to be parents.

[Keltest]

I was thinking about the Glabrezu, and noticed a couple of interesting things (This may have been brought this up before, though I don't recall seeing it).

In the fluff for the 2E version of the Glabrezu, it notes that Glabrezu communicate using telepathy. Since SoD is in the past, is it possible the MitD was a 2E version that then later changed to 3E?

Additionally, as early as 3E Draegloth are creatures that are created by the unholy union of a Glabrezu and a Drow high priestess, which shows that they can reproduce. Now whether they can definitively produce other Glabrezu is not stated anywhere that I have found, but this does show that they have the capacity to be parents.

Glabrezu, so far as I am aware, can only come about by following the chain and growing in power. They aren't born a glabrezu, certainly not biologically.

[Magesmiley]

I think that it might be worthwhile to circle back to the circus scene for some further discussion. That seems to be the primary objection to any new candidate for MitD.

Why do I think it's worthwhile? Because there seems to be a fixation that the effect is nausea, even though after rereading the section, I noted that there are clearly two characters in the strip that do not characterize it that way. In fact the only one who is definitely nauseous is the one losing his lunch on panel 1 of page 84 of SoD. The child in the center says that she feels funny looking at it, which isn't the same as nausea - it could indicate discomfort or being unsettled too.

So, the two characters commenting on it:

On page 84 of SoD, in panel 2, the ringmaster states "Look on in awe and terror folks..." Not exactly how I would expect something which induces nausea to be introduced. Terror.

On page 85 of SoD, in panel 2, Right-Eye states "Almost everyone else who spends a silver piece to get into the sideshow recoils in abject horror at the sight of you..." Again, not nausea. Horror.

If MitD had been described as grotesque nausea might fit, maybe. But terror and horror definitely suggest fear. Not nausea. And this is coming from two characters, in the comic, describing the expected and actual reaction to MitD's appearance.

I think that is a much stronger indication of what the reaction to MitD actually is than any speculation based on faces.

Admittedly, Xykon describes MitD as ugly later in the book, but he's also undead and couldn't be fearful or nauseated, so his reaction is kind of moot if we're talking about one of those two effects.

[Ruck]

I think that it might be worthwhile to circle back to the circus scene for some further discussion. That seems to be the primary objection to any new candidate for MitD.

Why do I think it's worthwhile? Because there seems to be a fixation that the effect is nausea

Whose fixation? The point of the scene is pretty clearly, I think, the range of reactions induced, one of which is nausea.

[catagent101]

Ehh... I feel you're stretching the little girl's statement somewhat. I feel like a kid that finds something scary or unsettling would say so rather than say a longer statement like that. Additionally, she is holding her hands over her stomach. If she was primarily scared, she would probably be hugging her mom or at least be closer to her or put her hands over her eyes. That is, her body language seems to indicate she's talking about an upset stomach.

[Xhosant]

"Range of Effects" is also my guess.

[Magesmiley]

Whose fixation? The point of the scene is pretty clearly, I think, the range of reactions induced, one of which is nausea.

If anything, it would suggest a horrific or unsettling appearance. Again horror, not nausea. As confirmed by both Right-Eye and the ringmaster.

Only one is reacting with what could be considered nausea. Out of over a dozen. That suggests pretty strongly that it isn't a nausea effect. A crowd reacting to an extremely horrific, unsettling, or grotesque appearance could be illustrated in the manner shown. Again horror, which is fear, not nausea.

Look at it from a game mechanic standpoint too: We've got a bench full of commoners and some goblins, plus Right-Eye and the wizardy guy (and possibly a warrior-type in the second row). Does it make sense that only one of those individuals failed their save by enough to be nauseated?

Assuming that we're talking about an effect that does one thing if you fail the save, and another if you fail it by a higher amount. We're talking 10+ of them. Even if they had to roll a 6 or better (say a DC of 11 that does something more if they fail by 5) to not be nauseous (.25 chance of failure each), there's still a very hefty chance that multiple will fail and be affected. Even more so if the number is more realistic for a creature of the power level MitD is believed to have, such as 13+ or 16+. Crunch the numbers if you don't believe me.

Again, this is a fear effect, probably from MitD being hideous or grotesque.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

there seems to be a fixation that the effect is nausea

I too, like Ruck, would like to see where this idea that there is "a fixation" is coming from. It is weird to start an honest discussion about a topic with an ad hominem.

If anything, it would suggest a horrific or unsettling appearance. Again horror, not nausea. As confirmed by both Right-Eye and the ringmaster.

That would be telling instead of showing, and ignoring what the showing is depicting. The depictions are NOT consistent with fear: no white faces, no urinating on themselves, no running away, no other non-ambiguous indication that any of these people are in fear. The depiction is consistent with something stomach-churning, vomit-inducing.

Only one is reacting with what could be considered nausea. Out of over a dozen.

I count at at least three. And I count 0 that are explicitly fear-looking. The one hiding his eyes could go either way. The rest are in various states of shock that could mean any number of emotions overwhelming them in the moment.

As to the actual words said, "Horrible" doesn't generally mean "causes horror", it means "ugly" (e.g. "that is a horrible haircut" doesn't mean "small children are going to run away from you", it means "small children are going to laugh at you"). And when used with that meaning, the counterpoint "And yet... beautiful" makes sense, since they are antonyms when "horrible" is using its "ugly" definition.

That suggests pretty strongly that it isn't a nausea effect. A crowd reacting to an extremely horrific, unsettling, or grotesque appearance could be illustrated in the manner shown. Again horror, which is fear, not nausea.

No, you are assuming your conclusion. 3 nausea depictions, 0 explicit fear depictions, and the rest are either neutral or could go either way. The depiction is far more aligned with disgust than it is with horror.

Look at it from a game mechanic standpoint too: We've got a bench full of commoners and some goblins, plus Right-Eye and the wizardy guy (and possibly a warrior-type in the second row). Does it make sense that only one of those individuals failed their save by enough to be nauseated?

I see no reason to assume MitD has an actual mechanic to cause either. I think it is quite clear a clue depicting what he looks like, not what passive aura he has. He might have one, but equally, he might not.

Assuming that we're talking about an effect that does one thing if you fail the save,

Again, I see no reason to assume this.

Again, this is a fear effect, probably from MitD being hideous or grotesque.

No it is not. A hideous or grotesque image doesn't cause fear, it causes disgust, as depicted.

Grey Wolf

[Magesmiley]

I too, like Ruck, would like to see where this idea that there is "a fixation" is coming from. It is weird to start an honest discussion about a topic with an ad hominem.
...

No it is not. A hideous or grotesque image doesn't cause fear, it causes disgust, as depicted.

Grey Wolf

Probably because nearly every new proposal gets shot down by the Circus Scene. And the insistence that it's a nausea effect. That's why I think there is a fixation on it.

One thing that those who believe insist that it is a nausea effect have not explained is why Right-Eye and the Ringmaster describe the reactions (expected and actual) as "awe and terror" and "recoils in abject horror." This is not one, but TWO different characters describing it.

Follow the evidence. These are Rich's own words that the characters are saying.

I've watched time and again many very good proposals refused simply because of the insistence that it doesn't fit causing nausea or sickness in the circus scene.

So, please account for the Ringmaster and Right-Eye's description of the reactions and I will gladly withdraw my comment regarding fixation. If these statements (note the plural - both of them) cannot be refuted in a credible manner, I think my point is made. Follow the evidence.

Please lay it out for me how those two quotes could possibly both be describing something that causes nausea or sickness without also invoking fear.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Probably because nearly every new proposal gets shot down by the Circus Scene. And the insistence that it's a nausea effect. That's why I think there is a fixation on it.

Which is a weird statement to make, because most proposals lately have had problems with strength and size - to the point where we just went through a rather contentious voting to adjust our approach to such creatures.

One thing that those who believe insist that it is a nausea effect have not explained is why Right-Eye and the Ringmaster describe the reactions (expected and actual) as "awe and terror" and "recoils in abject horror." This is not one, but TWO different characters describing it.

Follow the evidence. These are Rich's own words that the characters are saying.

I do follow the evidence, and I trust what is shown more than what it is said, under the "show, don't tell" best practice for storytelling. Especially when one of them is the ringmaster who thought he could also pass a dwarf woman as the amazing bearded woman, so his words are easily explained as "building up to disappointment". If what people say (and are known to misrepresent) does not match what is depicted, I trust what is depicted. And that's not even mentioning that both Xykon and the public's words suggest ugliness, not horror, so I could even point out that not even in speech do all characters agree on the best way to describe MitD.

Please lay it out for me how those two quotes could possibly both be describing something that causes nausea or sickness without also invoking fear.

Already have - they don't trump the actual shown, drawn evidence that what MitD causes is not fear but vomit-inducing, stomach-churning nausea.

So, please account for the Ringmaster and Right-Eye's description of the reactions and I will gladly withdraw my comment regarding fixation. If these statements (note the plural - both of them) cannot be refuted in a credible manner, I think my point is made. Follow the evidence.

No, instead what I will do is take note of the fact you are acknowledging and standing by your offensive characterisation of my position and therefore not talk to you further.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

I mean, fear is known to cause nausea. I think its a fair question to ask how youre distinguishing between directly inducing nausea and fear inducing nausea. Especially because something gross cant really be described as beautiful, but something terrifying can.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I mean, fear is known to cause nausea. I think its a fair question to ask how youre distinguishing between directly inducing nausea and fear inducing nausea. Especially because something gross cant really be described as beautiful, but something terrifying can.

Fear causes a large number of involuntary reactions. I described a few of them in my first post. Fear, however, is not usually depicted in graphic form with vomiting, even if you can find "nausea" in laundry lists of biological effects of fear. On the other hand, nausea can be caused by disgust, and in the absence of any other fear consequences, I don't see why we'd conclude "fear caused them nausea, but not any of the other biological or classic depictions of fear" rather than the far more parsimonious "looking at MitD causes nausea, but not outright fear".

Especially because something gross cant really be described as beautiful, but something terrifying can.

Something gross like a mould infestation can be both stomach-churning and be beautiful in terms of its colours or patterns. I find it as likely that something vomit inducing can be described as beautiful as something horror inducing - which is to say, not very likely, but can picture a handful of rare examples for both.

Grey Wolf

[Xhosant]

There's also the "beautiful" line.

I think it's clear we're looking at a 'spin the wheel for effect' kind of feature, a table for inflicted conditions

[locksmith of lo]

There was a quote that I saw a while back that said that "gothic literature makes a distinction between terror and horror. Terror is the sense of dread and apprehension that precedes an experience, horror is the sense of revulsion after an experience." The two words may seem synonymous, but they are very distinct when put into a time frame.

[Crusher]

Glabrezu, so far as I am aware, can only come about by following the chain and growing in power. They aren't born a glabrezu, certainly not biologically.

Its an interesting question. It certainly seems like fiends reproducing biologically would cause problems for the Stickverse cosmology, but the existence of Tieflings and Cambions (at least, in D&D. Citation needed for OotS) makes clear demons and devils can at least be *part* of the reproduction process. Plus, Slaads are outsiders and reproduce biologically (albeit in a really convoluted way) and it seems to be fine.

Edit - Also, Glasya is the daughter of Asmodeus and I can't find any reference to her as a Cambion, just a devil. Of course, maybe she's adopted rather than biological.

[Keltest]

Fear causes a number of involuntary reactions. I described a few of them in my first post. Fear, however, is not usually depicted in graphic form with vomiting, even if you can find "nausea" in laundry lists of biological effects of fear. And something gross like a mould infestation can be both stomach-churning and be beautiful in terms of its colours or patterns. I find it as likely that something vomit inducing can be described as beautiful as something horror inducing - which is to say, not very likely, but can picture a handful of rare examples for both.

GW

I concede the point on the mold, mostly out of a desire to get the image out of my head. But i disagree about fear commonly being portrayed with vomiting. Its generally used as the more persistent fear's counterpart to the jump scare pants wetting, at least in the media that im familiar with.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Its generally used as the more persistent fear's counterpart to the jump scare pants wetting, at least in the media that im familiar with.

I honestly cannot think of a single example. Is there any I missed, in OotS or other easily accessible webcomics? We saw heard the CPPD rookie vomit at the entrail trail left by Nale - but again, that's nausea, not fear - and I can think of a handful of similar moments in other webcomics (including the CSI parody in Schlock Mercenary, in similar circumstances), but when has a comic strip depicted fear with vomiting?

(Please don't ask me to go out to buy Amazing SpiderMan #34726 from my local retailer, though)

GW

[Keltest]

I honestly cannot think of a single example. Is there any I missed, in OotS or other easily accessible webcomics? We saw the CPPD vomit at the entrail trail left by Nale - but again, that's nausea, not fear - and I can think of a handful of similar moments in other webcomics (including the CSI parody in Schlock Mercenary, in similar circumstances), but when has a comic strip depicted fear with vomiting?

(Please don't ask me to go out to buy Amazing SpiderMan #34726 from my local retailer, though)

GW

In webcomics? not off hand, sorry. I think Questionable Content had a couple scenes of somebody dealing with severe fear and anxiety causing vomiting, but theres like 3000 pages of that, and filtering through them to find it would take a while. Having said that, i dont read very many webcomics, so i am probably not a particularly good source for that, in particular.

No, i was thinking more like books, where a character would emphasize their fear by describing their nausea, or TV shows, where a character would be anxious and afraid about something and running to the bathroom or, if it was a comedy, puking on somebody.

Also, as a personal anecdote, i get EXTREMELY nauseous whenever im having a fear response (usually to spiders). I have enough self control that i dont actually lose it every time i see a daddy longlegs or whatever, but if i were to look over and see, say, a wolf spider on my shoulder, i would absolutely throw up almost on the spot.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, i was thinking more like books, where a character would emphasize their fear by describing their nausea, or TV shows, where a character would be anxious and afraid about something and running to the bathroom or, if it was a comedy, puking on somebody.

See, I understand that to describe more the anxiety than the fear. Yes, you can obviously have both at the same time, but while I acknowledge that fear can cause nausea, I'm referring to how it is usually depicted. And honestly, even trying to think of a book where that is the case, I can dredge maybe a couple of moments where "it's the smell" or because of a disgusting image, not the fear itself. They can go hand in hand, certainly, but when it comes to shorthand trope depictions, vomit is not what I generally see being a fear characteristic, sorry.

(To be clear, anxiety as usually depicted need not be caused by fear itself, but by the expectation that fear is coming - i.e. that you will be in fear/danger/etc, rather than those feeling themselves, so I consider it a separate feeling and indeed one that should precede fear rather than be caused by it)

Also, as a personal anecdote, i get EXTREMELY nauseous whenever im having a fear response (usually to spiders). I have enough self control that i dont actually lose it every time i see a daddy longlegs or whatever, but if i were to look over and see, say, a wolf spider on my shoulder, i would absolutely throw up almost on the spot.

Please do not misunderstand me - I am by no means suggesting that fear cannot cause nausea. I am quite aware it can. My argument instead rests on two assertions: (1) that vomiting is not usually the way a comic depicts fear - vomiting indicates, depending on context, disgust or some other cause of nausea (very commonly drunkness) and (2) that in absence of other generally recognized indications of fear (urination might be hard for PG-13 to depict, but say sweating; either running or being stuck in place incapable of moving; fainting; pale faces... which admittedly I'm not sure are compatible with OotS style, but Rich surprises me there often), it feels implausible that Rich was trying to depict fear, while it feels very likely that he was depicting disgust.

Grey Wolf

[Ruck]

There's also the "beautiful" line.

I think it's clear we're looking at a 'spin the wheel for effect' kind of feature, a table for inflicted conditions

Or it could just be a creature that looks grotesque but also has really high charisma.

[Keltest]

Or it could just be a creature that looks grotesque but also has really high charisma.

Charisma is force of personality, not (just) physical beauty. You can be charismatic without anybody finding you particularly physically attractive.

[Xhosant]

Or it could just be a creature that looks grotesque but also has really high charisma.

Yea, the only reason this gets to be in the discussion is that the Giant likes these 'rule vs reality' punchlines. But he uses it as punchlines, not a joke several years in the making nor a justifiable red herring.

Also, of all the words to describe the circus reactions, 'diverse' is likely the best. "Beautiful" aside, you have what looks like surprise, fear, puking, disgust, unspecified weirdness and, in the case of repeat customers, indifference.

On another consideration, this just hit me: we have two cases of stated recognition (positive or negative): one wizard has stated they don't recognize it, one cleric has stated they do. This might be reaching, on several layers (Redcloack's statement of recognition might not be a hint but a writer's permission to the following statement, and the wizard's half of the argument is not mechanically absolute), but what if this is a hint to type?

If Redcloack recognizes it (and it's a hint) it is the subject of one of clerics' class skill Knowledges: Arcana, Religion, History, Planes. History has no monster subjects. Arcana you would expect the wizard to have (who has everything as a class skill, so that's weak, but of all the knowledges to neglect, that's the least likely). This leaves us with Religion and Planes: Undead, Elementals and Outsiders.

On a third note, I think it is important that Ochul calls the MitD a good man rather than a good person. It should mean that whatever the species, it is gendered. Even if Ochul merely calls him that because of MitD's preference, "good boy" would be more likely (since, besides being obviously a kid, the MitD refers, for example, to their club's rule as "no girls allowed", indicating that he sees himself as a kid, and if Ochul picked up his preference so would he).

[Keltest]

On a third note, I think it is important that Ochul calls the MitD a good man rather than a good person. It should mean that whatever the species, it is gendered. Even if Ochul merely calls him that because of MitD's preference, "good boy" would be more likely (since, besides being obviously a kid, the MitD refers, for example, to their club's rule as "no girls allowed", indicating that he sees himself as a kid, and if Ochul picked up his preference so would he).

Apologies if you already know this, but in American English, calling somebody a "good boy/girl" is pretty condescending. Its what we typically use to give positive verbal reinforcement to pets. When applied to a person, it almost always implies a lack of maturity relative to your age, and while this is not always intended to be offensive, its never really used in a fully positive context. It is very rarely actually stated directly to children, mostly because of the pet thing, and partly because it establishes an "i am older and therefore superior to you" undercurrent to what is supposed to be a compliment.

[Xhosant]

Huh, I was unaware it's unusual for children.

[Keltest]

Huh, I was unaware it's unusual for children.

Adults talking to each other might use it in reference, but kids dont generally appreciate being referred to like pets to their faces, and they DO appreciate being spoken to like a functioning adult, especially when youre trying to actually give feedback on something.

[Hardcore]

I strongly suspect Good man would be the preferred choice of words even when addressing a being with no gender.

[Ruck]

MITD seems to identify as male enough such to form a club with O-Chul which "girls can't join!"