MitD XVII: [Y]ou were quite clear. I was just being pedantic

[Fyraltari]

Reading your post, though, I was reminded of how much the MitD enjoys the sunshine in the deep rainforest (and certainly doesn't act like he suffers any ill effect from it), which is pretty strong evidence he is not damaged by light.

Unless, of course, the lantern archons were right all along.

[Ruck]

Unless, of course, the lantern archons were right all along.

Heh heh heh.

Although he did say if it hurts. I think he would know if light previously hurt him. But he might know this could hurt since it's an attack ("scorching justice of deadly rays of light" and all).

[Tzardok]

By the way, is there a reason why this thread uses "protean" instead of "hagunemnon"? I think it would reduce the possibility of confusing it with other "proteans".

[brian 333]

They're not "virtually the same," though. They are entirely different, as multiple people have pointed out to you, and half of your argument relies on pretending they are the same.
...
All right, well, then, I just have to go back to my original point since we're going in circles: You think the Pathfinder Protean and 3.5 Protean are virtually the same, even though they are not. You think species determines character and personality, even though one of the themes of the comic is that they do not, and there are a number of examples in the comic that they do not. These are the two fundamental flaws in your argument, and you seem to be dismissing all evidence against them. (Indeed, you have, multiple times, insisted the Pathfinder Protean and 3.5 Protean are the same when it has been spelled out in detail for you how they are not.)

I linked the Pathfinder version of Protean because it is similar enough to the D&D version to illustrate my point, and I could not find any other online source for the D&D protean. Having read the D&D version posted in this thread, it turns out that my primary point is still correct: the characterization of MitD is not consistent with that of the D&D protean.

In fact, the D&D version is a worse fit than the Pathfinder version because it is incapable of not constantly altering its size, the number of its eyes, and other physical characteristics. A D&D protean would, in turn, be too large to be contained in the box or hidden beneath the umbrella, too small to hold up the umbrella, and have a varying number and placement of eyes. Monster-san has been consistently portrayed in every detail that we can see. It is not a being whose body is in constant flux.

And so far, nobody has said how the PF version is so different that it invalidates my points. Both are creatures imbued with Chaos, both are natural, and involuntary, shape shifters, both hold beings which cannot shapeshift in contempt, both will attempt to pervert any attempt to control them. In every way that I cited as a reason protean does not work, they are the same. The differences, however, favor the PF version over the D&D version because a baby D&D protean has no shape at all. It is just a quivering lump of flesh in constant flux. At least the PF version has a native form it can revert to when not being something else.

Belkar is barefoot and likes food.
Both half orcs we've seen have had careers which necessitate violence.
All of the dwarves are clannish cave dwellers, (even Hilgya.)
In fact, all of the OotS characters are stereotypical for their species, with exceptions tacked on. None of them violate the general outline in the Monster Manual. We don't have weak half-orcs, stupid elves, or bards who cannot sing, (all characters I have seen played out in tabletop games.) Heck, we don't even have Joe the Fighter, who rolled 1 on his HD for the first three levels.

So, I do not expect MitD to deviate from the MM entry for it's species. It will not be the one protean capable of maintaining it's shape from infancy. It certainly may, and probably will, have cosmetic differences, but any difference will be in addition to rather than instead of the attributes assigned by the MM.

But what about Sunny? She's different!
Only in age and alignment. Otherwise, bog-standard D&D beholder. She is recognizable as her species. Now give her legs or arms? Then she's not a beholder any more.

The same applies to the MitD. She may have a different alignment, (the Monster Manual specifically says alignment deviation is possible,) but she will not be different from the MM description of her species, and her in comic portrayal to date invalidates protean as a possibility.

The Giant may have ideas that invalidate my assessment. The protean does have abilities which mimic or duplicate what we have seen in comic. I could be wrong. But in my opinion, protean does not fit what we can see of MitD. And so far, no one has been able to demonstrate how my points are invalid.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

By the way, is there a reason why this thread uses "protean" instead of "hagunemnon"? I think it would reduce the possibility of confusing it with other "proteans".

It's a heck of a lot easier to spell (no, seriously, that's my own personal reason). Also, the confusing-with-others is not that lessened with hagunemnon; we've had confusion with the haggunenons of HHGttG.

Grey Wolf

[Tzardok]

Never heard of them before, but those reasons together are valid.

[Keltest]

I linked the Pathfinder version of Protean because it is similar enough to the D&D version to illustrate my point, and I could not find any other online source for the D&D protean. Having read the D&D version posted in this thread, it turns out that my primary point is still correct: the characterization of MitD is not consistent with that of the D&D protean.

In fact, the D&D version is a worse fit than the Pathfinder version because it is incapable of not constantly altering its size, the number of its eyes, and other physical characteristics. A D&D protean would, in turn, be too large to be contained in the box or hidden beneath the umbrella, too small to hold up the umbrella, and have a varying number and placement of eyes. Monster-san has been consistently portrayed in every detail that we can see. It is not a being whose body is in constant flux.

And so far, nobody has said how the PF version is so different that it invalidates my points. Both are creatures imbued with Chaos, both are natural, and involuntary, shape shifters, both hold beings which cannot shapeshift in contempt, both will attempt to pervert any attempt to control them. In every way that I cited as a reason protean does not work, they are the same. The differences, however, favor the PF version over the D&D version because a baby D&D protean has no shape at all. It is just a quivering lump of flesh in constant flux. At least the PF version has a native form it can revert to when not being something else.

Belkar is barefoot and likes food.
Both half orcs we've seen have had careers which necessitate violence.
All of the dwarves are clannish cave dwellers, (even Hilgya.)
In fact, all of the OotS characters are stereotypical for their species, with exceptions tacked on. None of them violate the general outline in the Monster Manual. We don't have weak half-orcs, stupid elves, or bards who cannot sing, (all characters I have seen played out in tabletop games.) Heck, we don't even have Joe the Fighter, who rolled 1 on his HD for the first three levels.

So, I do not expect MitD to deviate from the MM entry for it's species. It will not be the one protean capable of maintaining it's shape from infancy. It certainly may, and probably will, have cosmetic differences, but any difference will be in addition to rather than instead of the attributes assigned by the MM.

But what about Sunny? She's different!
Only in age and alignment. Otherwise, bog-standard D&D beholder. She is recognizable as her species. Now give her legs or arms? Then she's not a beholder any more.

The same applies to the MitD. She may have a different alignment, (the Monster Manual specifically says alignment deviation is possible,) but she will not be different from the MM description of her species, and her in comic portrayal to date invalidates protean as a possibility.

The Giant may have ideas that invalidate my assessment. The protean does have abilities which mimic or duplicate what we have seen in comic. I could be wrong. But in my opinion, protean does not fit what we can see of MitD. And so far, no one has been able to demonstrate how my points are invalid.

I strongly dislike the protean as a candidate, but this is an incredibly superficial examination of all the characters involved. Heck, the comic itself has called out how Belkar does not behave as a "traditional" halfling does (which is half the joke of his character) being violent with severe anger issues rather than a jolly farmer type.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I linked the Pathfinder version of Protean because it is similar enough to the D&D version to illustrate my point, and I could not find any other online source for the D&D protean. Having read the D&D version posted in this thread, it turns out that my primary point is still correct: the characterization of MitD is not consistent with that of the D&D protean.

No, it is not. They differ in powerset, creature type, alignment, AND fluff. They are literally as different as two creatures can be.

Monster-san has been consistently portrayed in every detail that we can see. It is not a being whose body is in constant flux.

Yes, we know. It is literally a con in the first post. And a reasonable explanation is in Ruck's essay. If all you bring to the table is already in the first post, I really do wonder what you think you are adding to the conversation. Like I said, if you are unconvinced, you are unconvinced. Either find something better, or declare something else your preference, or accept this thread hasn't found a candidate to your liking. But this is not helpful.

a baby D&D protean has no shape at all. It is just a quivering lump of flesh in constant flux.

A protean has a size. Nothing anywhere indicates that a protean in constant flux isn't the listed size. It can become larger or smaller by use of its power, but by default, it's rolling mass of changes stays Large - thus explaining the "you'll get bigger" comments about the Medium sized MitD. Again, as before, this has been said over and over.

Belkar is barefoot and likes food.
Both half orcs we've seen have had careers which necessitate violence.
All of the dwarves are clannish cave dwellers, (even Hilgya.)

This (and every other like it in your posts) is an exercise in both special pleading and cherry picking. You are brushing aside every way in which they are not stereotypical by claiming they are "exceptions" even though the fact they are exceptional already nulls your argument, while also cherry picking which characteristics are the "core" for each species to suit your argument. I can do that too: I declare, just as you are doing, that a protean core stereotypical characteristic is "desire for change", which we see in MitD in his desire to leave the shadows, and I declare that his retaining a face like those around him is the exception that somehow we can ignore. There. MtiD is a perfect, valid member of its group just like all your other strained examples.

Except of course it doesn't work that way. There is no stereotypes all people adhere to in Rich's story. Dwarves come in all manner of personalities, outlooks and lifestyles. As do orcs, goblins and every other society we have seen. And even the one-offs that have given enough page time have been shown to be individuals, not cookie-cutter members of stereotypical sameness. And given the author is outspokenly against doing what you are suggesting he is doing, your entire argument is just nonsense in the face of it.

Grey Wolf

[InvisibleBison]

In fact, the D&D version is a worse fit than the Pathfinder version because it is incapable of not constantly altering its size, the number of its eyes, and other physical characteristics.

This is completely incorrect. A protean is perfectly capable of maintaining a consistent form for an arbitrarily long time if it chooses to spend a move action each round maintaining its shape. You may not find it likely that a protean would choose to do so, but to say that it is incapable of doing so is just wrong.

Also, a protean doesn't change size when it isn't controlling its form. The ability only mentions size changes as one of the things a protean can alter when it actively shapeshifts into a new form.

And so far, nobody has said how the PF version is so different that it invalidates my points. Both are creatures imbued with Chaos, both are natural, and involuntary, shape shifters, both hold beings which cannot shapeshift in contempt, both will attempt to pervert any attempt to control them. In every way that I cited as a reason protean does not work, they are the same.

I'm pretty sure people have in fact said how the differences invalidate your points, but to reiterate: The D&D protean is not imbued with chaos and it is not any more inclined or able to pervert attempts to control it than any other creature.

Belkar is barefoot and likes food.

Neither being barefoot nor liking food are typical elements of halflings. What is typical of halflings is their desire to "try to get along with everyone else" (PHB p. 19, MM p. 149). That doesn't sound like Belkar to me.

Both half orcs we've seen have had careers which necessitate violence.

The half-orc steroetype isn't that they do violence. It's that they are brutish thugs. But that's not how many half-orcs in OOTS are depicted - compare the PHB's statement that "[r]efined enjoyments such as poetry, courtly dancing, and philosphy are lost on [half-orcs]" with Therkla's love of romance novels.

All of the dwarves are clannish cave dwellers, (even Hilgya.)

How exactly is Hilgya clannish? She ran away from the fate her clan chose for her, then financially ruined them. There's also no reason to think she lives in a cave.

There are also other dwarves who don't display any signs of being "clannish cave dwellers", such as the dwarven assassin who tried to kill Roy or Kraagor.

In fact, all of the OotS characters are stereotypical for their species, with exceptions tacked on.

No, there are lots of characters who are not stereotypes. A whole bunch of them have been mentioned already, and you have failed to disprove any of them. You cannot simply assert your position is true, you have to actually prove it.

But what about Sunny? She's different!
Only in age and alignment. Otherwise, bog-standard D&D beholder.

Well, beholders typically have ten eye-stalks and Sunny has eight, but that might be a copyright issue, so we'll set it aside. Far more dispositive to your position is that Sunny does not act as the Monster Manual describes beholders: "Beholders are hateful, aggressive, and avaricious, attacking or dominating others whenever they can get away with it. They exhibit a xenophboic intolerance, hating all creatures not like themselves." The fact that Sunny acts completely contrary to that description is why they are an example of how characters in OOTS don't always conform to their description in the Monster Manual.

[Tzardok]

alignment,

Alignment? Both proteans are Always Chaotic Neutral, aren't they?

Otherwise I pretty much agree with you.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Alignment? Both proteans are Always Chaotic Neutral, aren't they?

Otherwise I pretty much agree with you.

Oh, sorry, if that is the case, my mistake. I had the recollection one was "usually" rather than "always"

ETA:

"[r]efined enjoyments such as petry[...]"

I've just spent something like 5 minutes trying to remember what "petry" might be - thinking maybe it's some victorian term for breeding small animals - before I realised it's a typo of poetry. And suddenly, I want a term for the refined art of breeding small rat dogs by well-to-do ladies.

GW

[Peelee]

We don't have .... bards who cannot sing

Bards are not a creature type.

[Keltest]

Bards are not a creature type.

For that matter, we did have a bard who cant sing: Squeaky's apprentice.

[Tzardok]

For that matter, we did have a bard who cant sing: Squeaky's apprentice.

First, she could sing, she just couldn't sing well.

Second, only in the flashback. In the present, her notes are straight.

[Ruck]

I linked the Pathfinder version of Protean because it is similar enough to the D&D version to illustrate my point, and I could not find any other online source for the D&D protean.

No, it is not! You keep repeating it is, but you have in no way demonstrated it.

And so far, nobody has said how the PF version is so different that it invalidates my points.

Here are at least two people who have:

No, it's actually very different:

Most notably, D&D proteans are not "physical embodiment[s] of Chaos".

I did "read the whole label", most notably the part that says "Large Aberration (Shapechanger)" and not "Large Outsider (Chaos, Shapechanger)". There's no contradiction between MitD's characterization in the comic and how the game depicts proteans, only between said characterization and your misunderstanding of what proteans are.

No, it is not. They different in powerset, creature type, alignment, AND fluff. They are literally as different as two creatures can be.

Here are the two descriptions side by side. There are numerous differences. They are not even the same creature type! The 3.5 Protean is an aberration; the Pathfinder Protean is an outsider. 3.5 Proteans are described as ever-changing tides of flesh; Pathfinder Proteans are described as "serpentine." They don't have the same powers at all. They don't have the same fluff at all. Pathfinder lists four types of Protean, and the Hagunemnon is not among them.

Spoiler: 3.5 Protean

Show

The ultimate shapeshifter, a hagunemnon can take on the extraordinary abilities of any other nondeific creature.

Hagunemnons, also known as proteans, have no natural shape; they always appear in flux, incorporating the physical attributes of two, three, or more creatures simultaneously. Their forms boil with possibility, and rarely does any attribute last for more than a minute. Even newborns are tides of flesh, ever changing.

Tainted with chaos at the time of their race's creation, proteans are denied the stability that most races enjoy. This has imbued them with undying hatred of all non-shapechanging beings (they tolerate other shapechangers but look down upon them for remaining in the same shape for hours or even days at a time). Hagunemnons travel endlessly, seeking new creatures to duplicate and new extraordinary abilities to assume. Their xenophobia generally results in their attempting to slay other beings after copying them.

Hagunemnons have an ever-evolving language that changes so quickly that only another hagunemnon can understand it. They can speak and understand the language of any other creature.

Spoiler: Pathfinder Protean

Show

Beings of pure chaos, the serpentine proteans slither through the anarchic improbabilities of Limbo, remaking reality according to their whims. According to their own history, they were already here when the first gods pulled forth the other planes from raw chaos—and they have been battling against the indignity ever since. Hereditary and ideological enemies of Axis, Heaven, and Hell, and especially of the residents of those planes, all proteans see it as their sacred duty to return the bland, static expanses of mundane reality to the beautiful incongruities of Limbo, for the planes’ own good and for the greater glory of their mysterious god, a dualistic deity which may be a living aspect of Limbo itself. They are Limbo’s living, breathing immune system, rooting out infections of mundanity and replacing them with beautiful entropy. Primeval in shape and philosophy, proteans are the race that most perfectly embodies the twin aspects of creation and destruction (although certain aeons might contest this claim). Even their language is mutable, evolving so quickly that few outsiders can understand it without magical aid. Ecological study is nearly impossible, as reproduction can take a wide variety of forms, from sexual union to fission to spontaneous generation. Despite their deceptively similar natural appearances, the two things that truly unify the protean race are slavish devotion to their strange god and a fervent desire for the dissolution of reality as we know it.

Proteans are organized into several sub-races or castes, each with its own individual abilities and roles. Other proteans than the four presented here doubtless exist, but they do not interact with other races nearly to the extent that these four types do.

Voidworms: Disowned by greater proteans, who find these tiny beings shameful, voidworms nevertheless retain all the characteristics of true proteans, and are frequently found swimming through Limbo in vast schools or serving as spellcasters’ familiars.

Naunets: Possessing little in the way of culture, the powerful naunets are the most bestial of the true proteans, representing the lowest recognized caste. Naunets are the shock troops of the protean race, and patrol the borderlands between Limbo and other planes, seeking out lawful incursions and making daring, savage raids into the realms of their enemies.

Imenteshes: These cunning proteans seek to subvert the forces of order from within their own systems, whispering information and insinuations where they can do the most damage. Endlessly creative, they adore reforming the landscapes of Limbo to suit their fancies, but enjoy warping the vistas and creatures of other planes even more.

Keketars: Priest-kings and voices of Limbo itself, keketars rule their fellows in the name of their bizarre god. Though their forms are extremely mutable, keketars can always be recognized thanks to eyes that glow amber or violet and floating crowns of swirling and changing symbols that often appear above their heads. Organized into cabals called choruses, keketars seek only to understand and follow the will of entropy.

Can you find the differences between the two descriptions here? I'm sure you can.

And so far, no one has been able to demonstrate how my points are invalid.

People have repeatedly. And, as Grey Wolf said with your argument that every species in OOTS is a stereotype, you have chosen to handwave away without explanation or outright ignore every piece of evidence that contradicts your arguments statements. (I can't even call them arguments, since you don't support them; you just insist they're true and when people show you evidence that they're not, you repeat your insistence.) That's why this is getting nowhere.

[Tubercular Ox]

As far as I can tell looking back at your case for the Hunting Horror

Thank you for your critique, but I'd like to back up even farther than the HH. I think we agree Rich has a personality, and I often have a sensation that we are all in broad agreement on what it is, but then a switch flips and suddenly we're concluding opposite things from the same sources. For example, how to read the quote about alternate MitD's.

[Kish]

Thank you for your critique, but I'd like to back up even farther than the HH. I think we agree Rich has a personality, and I often have a sensation that we are all in broad agreement on what it is, but then a switch flips and suddenly we're concluding opposite things from the same sources. For example, how to read the quote about alternate MitD's.

Sure. It seems evident to me (and, I think, also to Ruck and Grey Wolf) that his answer to the question posed was an answer to that question (no, there is no creature that would fit the story better and here's why), but you seem to be viewing it instead as an expression of being mortally offended by the question. And to support this you brought in two comparisons in which, instead of asking a question for information, you asked him to do something, so that taking "no" to mean offense made more sense.

[woweedd]

I linked the Pathfinder version of Protean because it is similar enough to the D&D version to illustrate my point, and I could not find any other online source for the D&D protean. Having read the D&D version posted in this thread, it turns out that my primary point is still correct: the characterization of MitD is not consistent with that of the D&D protean.

In fact, the D&D version is a worse fit than the Pathfinder version because it is incapable of not constantly altering its size, the number of its eyes, and other physical characteristics. A D&D protean would, in turn, be too large to be contained in the box or hidden beneath the umbrella, too small to hold up the umbrella, and have a varying number and placement of eyes. Monster-san has been consistently portrayed in every detail that we can see. It is not a being whose body is in constant flux.

And so far, nobody has said how the PF version is so different that it invalidates my points. Both are creatures imbued with Chaos, both are natural, and involuntary, shape shifters, both hold beings which cannot shapeshift in contempt, both will attempt to pervert any attempt to control them. In every way that I cited as a reason protean does not work, they are the same. The differences, however, favor the PF version over the D&D version because a baby D&D protean has no shape at all. It is just a quivering lump of flesh in constant flux. At least the PF version has a native form it can revert to when not being something else.

Belkar is barefoot and likes food.
Both half orcs we've seen have had careers which necessitate violence.
All of the dwarves are clannish cave dwellers, (even Hilgya.)
In fact, all of the OotS characters are stereotypical for their species, with exceptions tacked on. None of them violate the general outline in the Monster Manual. We don't have weak half-orcs, stupid elves, or bards who cannot sing, (all characters I have seen played out in tabletop games.) Heck, we don't even have Joe the Fighter, who rolled 1 on his HD for the first three levels.

So, I do not expect MitD to deviate from the MM entry for it's species. It will not be the one protean capable of maintaining it's shape from infancy. It certainly may, and probably will, have cosmetic differences, but any difference will be in addition to rather than instead of the attributes assigned by the MM.

But what about Sunny? She's different!
Only in age and alignment. Otherwise, bog-standard D&D beholder. She is recognizable as her species. Now give her legs or arms? Then she's not a beholder any more.

The same applies to the MitD. She may have a different alignment, (the Monster Manual specifically says alignment deviation is possible,) but she will not be different from the MM description of her species, and her in comic portrayal to date invalidates protean as a possibility.

The Giant may have ideas that invalidate my assessment. The protean does have abilities which mimic or duplicate what we have seen in comic. I could be wrong. But in my opinion, protean does not fit what we can see of MitD. And so far, no one has been able to demonstrate how my points are invalid.

I feel you may be missing a major point of the storyline.

[Kish]

Or possibly blatantly dodging a major point of the storyline because Brian reacts to the idea "it's wrong to make universal generalizations based on race in any game ever" like it was a basilisk's gaze, who knows?

[Tubercular Ox]

Sure. It seems evident to me (and, I think, also to Ruck and Grey Wolf) that his answer to the question posed was an answer to that question (no, there is no creature that would fit the story better and here's why), but you seem to be viewing it instead as an expression of being mortally offended by the question. And to support this you brought in two comparisons in which, instead of asking a question for information, you asked him to do something, so that taking "no" to mean offense made more sense.

I'm sorry, I got lost. Is "his answer" Ruck's or Grey Wolf's? What was the question posed? There were a lot of them. I think I can figure out the rest if you give me that.

[Kish]

"His answer" is Rich's, what you called the "quote about alternate MitDs." You brought it up as an example of how clearly agitated he was (because he said no, and expanded on it instead of stopping at one word).

[Fyraltari]

"His answer" is Rich's, what you called the "quote about alternate MitDs." You brought it up as an example of how clearly agitated he was (because he said no, and expanded on it instead of stopping at one word).

Monosyllabic responses are the markers of a calm and rational discussion, you know.

[brian 333]

I feel you may be missing a major point of the storyline.

No, I get the point. But being aware that people can differ from your expectations is vastly different from pigeonholing all beings of a particular species into a single cubby.

Look at the half orcs we have seen in comic: Thog and Therkla. Both characters are typical half orcs: one is a member of the only class which allowed unlimited advancement to a half-orc in 1st ed, while the other is literally the stereotype for half-orc barbarian. Do they also have unique personalities? Of course, they are PCs. (Or PC classed NPCs for the pedantic.)

Is it bad that these characters adhere to stereotype so exactly that they could pose for the illustration in the Player's Handbook? No.

What is bad is when we assume that that is [I]all[/] they can be. (Which would completely ruin my character Hugdush, the half-orc gourmet chef. (I played him on NwN for years, and I think he made it to third level on DM awarded exp.)) The author's point is not that every creature has to be a unique individual with traits that differ from the book, but that any being deserves to be treated as a unique individual, rather than killed because it doesn't look like what you see in the mirror. Good goblins? Yes, very possible. Evil goblins? Again possible. Neither is fair game to kill just because they are green.

There are large numbers of creatures in the comic who look and act just like the Monster Manual description. If one must be killed, the one planning to do the killing must have a good reason that is not, "Those are always Evil," or, "Monster! Kill it and take its stuff!"

How we get from that very valid point to, Monster-san can't be like the Monster Manual," or even, "Probably won't be like," is beyond me. And as for, "We can ignore attributes the Monster Manual assigns to Monster-san that don't fit because the author does this all the time?" First, no he doesn't. He gives them unique personalities, not unique characteristics. Second, he has said we would be able to recognize the Monster. Deviate from the Monster Manual and it becomes a homebrew. "But it's just like this, if we make these changes to the creature's mechanical characterization," in my opinion, invalidates the choice.

I apologize to Grey Wolf. It was not my intent to hijack his thread with this digression. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, let's please make another thread for that.

[Tubercular Ox]

"His answer" is Rich's, what you called the "quote about alternate MitDs." You brought it up as an example of how clearly agitated he was (because he said no, and expanded on it instead of stopping at one word).

Thank you. Dunno how I got lost.

I don't consider "just answering the question" a valid null hypothesis. I don't think people work that way. The null hypothesis is that they care about something.

It's a valid hypothesis. It's possible he's just answering the question. But it's not a privileged hypothesis in the way a null hypothesis is privileged.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. We're exploring differences.

[Ruck]

Look at the half orcs we have seen in comic: Thog and Therkla. Both characters are typical half orcs: one is a member of the only class which allowed unlimited advancement to a half-orc in 1st ed, while the other is literally the stereotype for half-orc barbarian. Do they also have unique personalities? Of course, they are PCs. (Or PC classed NPCs for the pedantic.)

Not sure what 1st edition has to do with a story originally built on 3.5.

And how about Bozzok? He's an intelligent schemer who runs a thieves' guild and has a human woman do most of his dirty work. What's stereotypical about that?

This is a story; there are no PCs. If there were PCs, they would be The Order of the Stick.

How we get from that very valid point

You've been cherry-picking to make your point "valid," though. Any trait that a character displays that isn't stereotypical for their race doesn't count in your eyes. Of course you can say they're all stereotypes if you throw out every way they're not.

to, Monster-san can't be like the Monster Manual," or even, "Probably won't be like," is beyond me. And as for, "We can ignore attributes the Monster Manual assigns to Monster-san that don't fit because the author does this all the time?" First, no he doesn't. He gives them unique personalities, not unique characteristics. Second, he has said we would be able to recognize the Monster. Deviate from the Monster Manual and it becomes a homebrew. "But it's just like this, if we make these changes to the creature's mechanical characterization," in my opinion, invalidates the choice.

But, again, you're using the wrong Monster Manual, and you are bringing a number of assumptions about how the species should act that are not in any Monster Manual and can't be just considered a "well-known stereotype" considering how rare the species is.

I apologize to Grey Wolf. It was not my intent to hijack his thread with this digression. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, let's please make another thread for that.

It's not really a hijack since we're still talking about MitD; I would surmise that any frustration people have is due to your total unwillingness to acknowledge, for example, that you are using the entirely wrong source information for a Protean and keep insisting it is virtually the same when it is not even close.

Thank you. Dunno how I got lost.

I don't consider "just answering the question" a valid null hypothesis. I don't think people work that way. The null hypothesis is that they care about something.

I think "assuming a lot of emotional subtext in anything anyone says, ever," is a lot further from the valid null hypothesis than "people say what they mean."

[Tubercular Ox]

I think "assuming a lot of emotional subtext in anything anyone says, ever," is a lot further from the valid null hypothesis than "people say what they mean."

Where would you put, "Sometimes people say things without thinking them all the way through" ?

[brian 333]

But, again, you're using the wrong Monster Manual, and you are bringing a number of assumptions about how the species should act that are not in any Monster Manual and can't be just considered a "well-known stereotype" considering how rare the species is.

I acknowledged the PF entry was the wrong one two pages back after the correct entry was posted, and since then have been basing my hypothesis on the correct one. The D&D version is actually a worse fit than the PF version.

And for the record, there is a difference between characteristics and personality. Personality quirks play no part in my theorizing, though they have been universally used to justify posts saying how wrong I am. Bozzok is a half orc running a thieves' guild? Half orc thieves' guild enforcers have been a stereotype since 1st ed.

[InvisibleBison]

And for the record, there is a difference between characteristics and personality. Personality quirks play no part in my theorizing, though they have been universally used to justify posts saying how wrong I am. Bozzok is a half orc running a thieves' guild? Half orc thieves' guild enforcers have been a stereotype since 1st ed.

Bozzok isn't the Thieves' Guild enforcer; Crystalis the enforcer. Bozzok is the head of the guild. If you have to be wrong about a character in order for them to not disprove your point, your point is wrong.

Also, it's interesting to note how your position started out as "Every monster and character in the comic has been true to the text of the Monster Manual", and has since shifted into arguing that every character is a stereotype. Even if we don't use your incredibly broad definition of stereotype, those two ideas are not the same.

[Peelee]

Both characters are typical half orcs: one is a member of the only class which allowed unlimited advancement to a half-orc in 1st ed

Half orc thieves' guild enforcers have been a stereotype since 1st ed.

Way back in like the early aughts or so, I saw An Evening with Kevin Smith. Very funny, I loved it. You can get a feel of why he succeeded in Hollywood, he is a consummate storyteller, just in his element regaling tales to people. Anyway, he was asked a question on his involvement in a Superman movie, and long story short, went to Jon Peters' house to discuss the script he had written for it. Peter's wanted more action, and said he wanted Brainiac, the villain of the piece, to have a fight outside the Fortress of Solitude while Superman was away. He ultimately decided on a polar bear, and asked Kevin Smith if he knew anything about polar bears. "Polar bears are the fiercest killers in the animal kingdom", Peters proclaimed.

They finish with the script, and Peters states that he has three points he wants and will not budge on - no suit/cape, no flying, and for Superman to fight a giant spider in the third act. Kevin Smith bypasses the cape and suit issues and asks about the giant spider, to which Jon Peters replies, "spiders are the fiercest killers in the insect kingdom".



I wonder how much more we'll hear about the fiercest killers in th1st ed.

[Ruck]

InvisibleBison got to the claim about Bozzok quicker and better than I would have, so I'll just say:

I acknowledged the PF entry was the wrong one two pages back after the correct entry was posted, and since then have been basing my hypothesis on the correct one. The D&D version is actually a worse fit than the PF version.

How? Demonstrate it. This is another assertion, an unproven claim. If you want specific points to refute, I wrote about 4,000 words on why I think it is the best fit, so if you don't have any specifics, you could start there and try to pick those apart.

They finish with the script, and Peters states that he has three points he wants and will not budge on - no suit/cape, no flying, and for Superman to fight a giant spider in the third act. Kevin Smith bypasses the cape and suit issues and asks about the giant spider, to which Jon Peters replies, "spiders are the fiercest killers in the insect kingdom".

I thought that name sounded familiar, so I went to double-check. Guess who produced Wild Wild West.