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

[b_jonas]

This is a story; there are no PCs.

The hobgoblins believe that there are PCs, #455 last panel.

[Peelee]

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

Kevin Smith touches on that in the story.

[Ruck]

Kevin Smith touches on that in the story.

I hadn't listened to the Smith story, but I remembered the name because Tom Breihan's The Number Ones series on Stereogum talked about the making of the movie when he got to "Wild Wild West" (and he even links to the Smith story). Apparently Peters started out as Barbra Streisand's hairdresser?

[Peelee]

I hadn't listened to the Smith story, but I remembered the name because Tom Breihan's The Number Ones series on Stereogum talked about the making of the movie when he got to "Wild Wild West" (and he even links to the Smith story). Apparently Peters started out as Barbra Streisand's hairdresser?

Another thing he touches on in the story. You can Google "evening with Kevin Smith superman lives" and catch that specific bit on YouTube. Which I recommend. Great storyteller.

[Kish]

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

Considering it's standing in for "in this specific online interview, where Rich deliberately chose to answer questions (and not to free-associate about whatever emotions those questions made him feel), the fact that his answer to one specific question includes the word 'no' more than once shows that he is highly offended by the question," I'd call it "doesn't say anything about Rich's emotional or mental state but does say something about that of the person arguing for that interpretation," myself.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

How? Demonstrate it.

I believe they are referring to this post:

Either way. As I said before, the Pathfinder version is actually a better fit because it has a natural form to return to, while the D&D version does not. Otherwise, both are in constant flux and doing crazy things like growing extra eyes, (MitD always has two,) or changing size from Diminutive to Gargantuan.(MitD always fits under the umbrella, and it never falls to the ground while MitD is being a flea.)

So, essentially, the old assertion that because MitD could use his Alter Shape ability to change sizes, he must be using it to do so constantly, even though he has no reason to, would mean disobeying Xykon's order to stay in the shadows, and likely he is unaware he can. With a pinch of "why haven't we seen more eyes" (aka "because he is trying to fit in"). Which, like I said, these are known, have been in the first post for ages and been addressed in your essay for about as long. Brian has brought nothing new to the table, and at this point he clearly has nothing new to offer other than "I have decided that regardless of what the fluff and powerset say, the proteans should act like I think and not how they do work, and therefore if MitD is a protean, Rich is doing it wrong".

Grey Wolf

[brian 333]

I believe they are referring to this post:


So, essentially, the old assertion that because MitD could use his Alter Shape ability to change sizes, he must be using it to do so constantly, even though he has no reason to, would mean disobeying Xykon's order to stay in the shadows, and likely he is unaware he can. With a pinch of "why haven't we seen more eyes" (aka "because he is trying to fit in"). Which, like I said, these are known, have been in the first post for ages and been addressed in your essay for about as long. Brian has brought nothing new to the table, and at this point he clearly has nothing new to offer other than "I have decided that regardless of what the fluff and powerset say, the proteans should act like I think and not how they do work, and therefore if MitD is a protean, Rich is doing it wrong".

Grey Wolf

I am only responding to criticisms of my opinion, most of which have never even addressed my actual arguments.

Your summation of my point is also curious. Why distort my actual arguments with your sarcasm? If you disagree with my points, then do so. Having a wrong opinion does not make one bad.

I got into this thread after a half-dozen posts which repeated the same points about how great a fit the protean was. Those posts were never challenged based on their bringing nothing new to the table. I disagreed, and suddenly we have three pages devoted to proving me wrong. Very curious.

Finally, I never said the author is doing it wrong. In fact, in my original post I said if he wanted MitD to be a protean, he could do so and have it make sense. My argument was never based on asserting that I know better than the author how to write his story. This is just gratuitous denigration of me, and has nothing to do with what I posted.

In fact, I've tried to bow out of the discussion, only to have another page of posts, mostly hostile, belittling, or denigrating to me personally, which either asserted things I never said as my opinion, asserted that I should respond to points I made pages ago, or simply gratuitously insulted me for being wrong. Is this an honest debate?

My single, original post in this thread would have been my only post in this thread if the response had been, "Yes, we know, but have disregarded those points in previous discussions." Instead, it became a quest to prove me wrong which ends with my original points still standing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If you disagree with my points, then do so.

I do, and I have. 4 times now. You are the one that is avoiding actually acknowledging that your points have been addressed by multiple posters multiple times each, and yet you continue to claim, baselessly, that you haven't been answered. But you have. Over and over. So yes, I'm tired of explicitly answering your two points and thus will just continue to come up with increasingly waspish ways of pointing out that you have in fact said nothing new to this thread except that in your opinion the PF protean is better. Which I told you at the start: good for you. Tell Crusher. But "Brian333's opinion" is not in fact evidence or even an argument.

Finally, I never said the author is doing it wrong.

No, but you have implied it. Every time you have asserted something about how proteans work that MitD* is not doing - such as "crazy things like [...] changing sizes from Diminutive to Gargantuan" - you are implicitly saying that Rich is not following the D&D rules when it comes to MitD*. Which is a problem when you are clearly misreading how proteans work. There is nothing wrong about a protean not changing sizes. There is in fact nothing wrong even with a protean never having more than two eyes. There are a few consideration in that regard specifically when he is asleep, but that one criticism hasn't been brought up by you.

My single, original post in this thread would have been my only post in this thread if the response had been, "Yes, we know, but have disregarded those points in previous discussions." Instead, it became a quest to prove me wrong which ends with my original points still standing.

Your "single, original post in this thread" is this:

I'm having trouble swallowing the Protean Pill.
MitD is something Xykon believes he can command. By their nature, Suggestion, Dominate, Geas, and similar spells which compel a creature to do something will ultimately fail.
Proteans are physical embodiements of Chaos. Even the most successful domination will be perverted and twisted to make it virtually useless.

Besides, as a matter of characterization, MitD has been a stable character. Certainly growth has occurred, but the character traits established in DCF still resonate in the character. I doubt a Protean could hold it together anywhere near that long.

This has been addressed multiple time:
1) D&D proteans are not "physical embodiements[sic] of Chaos". Which I believe InvisibleBison has told you no fewer than three times. Possibly Ruck as well.
2) "MitD has been a stable character". This is your opinion, and the bits that aren't are wrong. He is the one that is actually switching allegiances. He is in fact changing. Could you assert he should be changing "more"? Sure, but that's where your opinion kicks in. There is nothing to debate, because regardless of how much he changes, you can always assert that he should change "more". I think he is changing just about enough for a lonely creature desperately trying to fit in and have friends. Which, again, opinion.
3) "I doubt a Protean could hold it together anywhere near that long.". This is, again, partially your opinion, and a mixture of known issue, outright wrong reading of the powerset (possibly because you were looking at the wrong powerset, which you then spent many posts trying to defend as "identical" even though it is not) and just wrong.

Grey Wolf

*If MitD is in fact a protean

[Tubercular Ox]

Considering it's standing in for "in this specific online interview, where Rich deliberately chose to answer questions (and not to free-associate about whatever emotions those questions made him feel), the fact that his answer to one specific question includes the word 'no' more than once shows that he is highly offended by the question," I'd call it "doesn't say anything about Rich's emotional or mental state but does say something about that of the person arguing for that interpretation," myself.

I agree it would be difficult to conclusively say Rich has a particular mood or personality from one quote divorced of context. I have a feeling I get from reading it, but I could be wrong.

If you said just this quote was Rich answering a question without any emotional content, normally you would need positive evidence because answering questions without emotion is not the default for how people work. However, I would give you the benefit of the doubt and let you have the point because there really isn’t a lot of positive evidence you would need to say this about one quote.

But what I heard you say is that you think the assumption that quotes lack emotional content is privileged because it doesn’t add anything to the informational content, and not adding things is simplest. This makes me think that you treat all quotes from Rich as if they lack emotional content. Correct me if I’m wrong.

If I’m right, we’re in dangerous territory, because every time you say a quote lacks emotional content you are making it more and more extraordinary that Rich has an iron will for answering questions and never reveals emotional content.

Find me the quotes where he loses his cool, or lets something slip, or is happy to talk about something and goes into a bit too much detail. Those would make that version of Rich seem more human.

Or don’t. I’m not here to make work for you. But this is part of what I meant when I said, “How you treat Rich is shocking.”

[Keltest]

I have a question. Why does it matter what his emotional state is? I also read it as being answered with exaggerated patience, but its a pretty straightforward answer. If he changed it, things would have to be different, obviously, because changing it would make them different. I have fought and died on some pretty arbitrary hills in this thread, but this seems to be exceptionally pointless even by those standards.

[Peelee]

I agree it would be difficult to conclusively say Rich has a particular mood or personality from one quote divorced of context. I have a feeling I get from reading it, but I could be wrong.

If you said just this quote was Rich answering a question without any emotional content, normally you would need positive evidence because answering questions without emotion is not the default for how people work. However, I would give you the benefit of the doubt and let you have the point because there really isn’t a lot of positive evidence you would need to say this about one quote.

But what I heard you say is that you think the assumption that quotes lack emotional content is privileged because it doesn’t add anything to the informational content, and not adding things is simplest. This makes me think that you treat all quotes from Rich as if they lack emotional content. Correct me if I’m wrong.

If I’m right, we’re in dangerous territory, because every time you say a quote lacks emotional content you are making it more and more extraordinary that Rich has an iron will for answering questions and never reveals emotional content.

Find me the quotes where he loses his cool, or lets something slip, or is happy to talk about something and goes into a bit too much detail. Those would make that version of Rich seem more human.

Or don’t. I’m not here to make work for you. But this is part of what I meant when I said, “How you treat Rich is shocking.”

Notwithstanding that you've asked other people to do your research for you, The Giant tends to be quite evocative when he wants.

The quote that you interpret as upset is far from evocative. It is in quite plain, neutral language. If, based off that response, you would not try to sell him something as you earlier alluded, I would recommend against costumer-facing positions in your professional life.

[Ruck]

answering questions without emotion is not the default for how people work.

You keep saying this, but I don't think you've even tried to demonstrate it.

[Kish]

But this is part of what I meant when I said, “How you treat Rich is shocking.”

Well, that is quite a bit more personal than what you said the first time, but if you want to change "how Rich is treated here" to "how you treat Rich," feel free. However, that does not make a compelling case...except perhaps that emotional appeals are the only language you try to make any case in. But the thing is, even if Rich was to post here and say, "Yes, I was on the brink of a heart attack when I wrote that answer; I had to spend the rest of the day drinking soothing tea and staying off the Internet," it would still not actually point to "the creature in the darkness is more likely to be a hunting horror than a protean." And...I consider it vastly more respectful to Rich to approach his writing as though he applied some level of logic to it than to ignore the actual answer he gave in favor of assertions about how clearly agitated he is in giving it.

Hands up, anyone who both believes protean is above the threshold of "can be immediately ruled out," and thinks that the creature in the darkness being a protean rather than a hunting horror would be somehow an insult to Rich.

[Ruck]

I have a question. Why does it matter what his emotional state is?

It doesn't, as far as I can tell. Or, to repeat what's been said already:

But the thing is, even if Rich was to post here and say, "Yes, I was on the brink of a heart attack when I wrote that answer; I had to spend the rest of the day drinking soothing tea and staying off the Internet," it would still not actually point to "the creature in the darkness is more likely to be a hunting horror than a protean."

But in general, trying to divine the emotional state of someone you don't know through the written word seems pretty futile to me. I'm not even sure what Tubercular Ox is trying to demonstrate at this point, or what conclusions he would draw even if he were correct about Rich's emotional state.

[Tubercular Ox]

You keep saying this, but I don't think you've even tried to demonstrate it.

How would I?

I would recommend against costumer-facing positions in your professional life.

Ten years in customer service and sales. Top seller. Got promoted into teaching others to sell and provide customer service. Does that give me authority you'll listen to?

I have a question. Why does it matter what his emotional state is? I also read it as being answered with exaggerated patience, but its a pretty straightforward answer. If he changed it, things would have to be different, obviously, because changing it would make them different. I have fought and died on some pretty arbitrary hills in this thread, but this seems to be exceptionally pointless even by those standards.

I think exaggerated patience is a great description. May I steal it?

I brought the quote up because it seemed like a good idea at the time. This happens often for lots of people.

I feel rewarded for bringing it up because the whole thread makes more sense to me when seen from the perspective of everything Rich is saying being forced into an information-only format. Maybe that’s off topic since I’m showing interest in the people of the thread instead of in the MitD. Hopefully going out on that limb shows that I think motive is a huge deal in every scenario, not just picking a candidate for MitD.

I’m not sure where this is going because pushing forward too quickly is a persistent error of mine. Maybe in the future I would like to post a larger write up of my argument for the Hunting Horror, but I don’t think now is the time.

Just because that is my eventual goal does not mean that everything I say has to lead towards it. I have hobbies, like understanding the other people in this thread.

I’m uncomfortable with how people keep trying to twist this back to Protean v. Hunting Horror, or to the one claim I made about one quote. Obviously a bigger picture is needed to say anything, but we're not at the point where we can start painting pictures for each other. We have just barely reached a point where I feel like I know even one of you better than before, and not a lot at that. Is it time already to go back into the trenches?

[Kish]

I feel rewarded for bringing it up because the whole thread makes more sense to me when seen from the perspective of everything Rich is saying being forced into an information-only format. Maybe that’s off topic since I’m showing interest in the people of the thread instead of in the MitD. Hopefully going out on that limb shows that I think motive is a huge deal in every scenario, not just picking a candidate for MitD.

No, your terminology--"forced into...information-only format"--mainly shows that when you can't get people to agree with you you'll try to score on them instead.

I’m uncomfortable with how people keep trying to twist this back to Protean v. Hunting Horror, or to the one claim I made about one quote.

I can only speak for myself, but I try to "twist this" back to the subject that's, you know, on-topic for the thread because that's what I'm interested in discussing here. Your condescendingly psychoanalyzing other people is just annoying.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Hands up, anyone who both believes protean is above the threshold of "can be immediately ruled out," and thinks that the creature in the darkness being a protean rather than a hunting horror would be somehow an insult to Rich.

I mean, I can't say I have been following this that closely, but I can say for certainty that no Rich quote offered by Tubercular Ox so far suggests that their particular pick fits any of those quotes any better than any other suggestion, regardless of whichever emotional state I randomly project onto Rich's answers. Looking at the "no, no other creature fits better than the one I picked" quote, for example, whether I assume that Rich was on the verge of apoplexy, calm as a cucumber, angry at the person for daring to ask, or high out of his mind because he just came back from a trip to the CG afterlife, I still cannot see how that answer would favour any candidate above any other.

And FWIW, I agree with woweedd: Tubercular Ox does not know Rich, and I certainly do not for a minute believe that he is somehow capable of psychoanalysing Rich or even his writing style from reading a few scattered quotes. And even if they did, no evidence has surfaced that'd make HH fit better his conclusions than any random creature they were predisposed towards.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Ten years in customer service and sales. Top seller. Got promoted into teaching others to sell and provide customer service. Does that give me authority you'll listen to?

No, it just makes me wonder how someone with your background could interpret a very neutral answer as vehemently negative.

What, exactly, makes you view it as so negative? As I have shown, it is not evocative as other posts where he clearly is agitated at the question. It has purely neutral vocabulary and phrasing. Nothing is emphasized or significantly repeated. Being text, it lacks tone. It bears zero hallmarks that I can tell for a negative response. Why do you interpret it as such?

[brian 333]

I do, and I have. 4 times now. You are the one that is avoiding actually acknowledging that your points have been addressed by multiple posters multiple times each, and yet you continue to claim, baselessly, that you haven't been answered. But you have. Over and over. So yes, I'm tired of explicitly answering your two points and thus will just continue to come up with increasingly waspish ways of pointing out that you have in fact said nothing new to this thread except that in your opinion the PF protean is better. Which I told you at the start: good for you. Tell Crusher. But "Brian333's opinion" is not in fact evidence or even an argument.

Repeatedly asserting that I am wrong is not the same as addressing my points. My points are only baseless if you ignore the original Epic Level Handbook version of the protean, posted by Invisible Bison some time back.

"Hagumemnons, also known as proteans, have no natural shape; they appear always in flux...
Their forms boil with possibility, and rarely does any attribute last for more than a minute. Even newborns are tides of flesh, ever changing."

It has been asserted that MitD could choose to not change, so the amorphous nature that characterizes proteans has been dismissed. This might be possible with Pathfinder proteans, which have a natural shape, but according to the ELH:

"Proteans are DENIED the stability that most races enjoy."

In other words, they cannot choose to maintain a shape for long periods of time, and are compelled to constantly flow between forms. Shape changing is not an ability they can invoke; it is a basic part of what they are.

And yet we see no evidence of this characteristic in the comic. Is MitD some kind of protean who can, in defiance of its basic nature, have a stable form? If so, is it then still a protean, or something else?

No, but you have implied it. Every time you have asserted something about how proteans work that MitD* is not doing - such as "crazy things like [...] changing sizes from Diminutive to Gargantuan" - you are implicitly saying that Rich is not following the D&D rules when it comes to MitD*. Which is a problem when you are clearly misreading how proteans work. There is nothing wrong about a protean not changing sizes. There is in fact nothing wrong even with a protean never having more than two eyes. There are a few consideration in that regard specifically when he is asleep, but that one criticism hasn't been brought up by you.

I have not asserted nor implied that the author is wrong: that is a baseless accusation you make to belittle me and avoid addressing the points I make.

To be clear, I have said that, in my opinion, protean cannot be the MitD. In other words, I have said YOU are wrong, not the author. Everything you posted after that heavily implies that you are purposely ignoring what a protean is to make it fit into the MitD box.
Proteans cannot control the fact that their shape is constantly in flux.
Proteans cannot maintain a size category because they are compelled by their nature to constantly change.
A protean cannot even control if it has eyes much less how many for more than a minute or two.

This is not me misreading the monster description: this is me just reading what was written on the page.

This has been addressed multiple time:
1) D&D proteans are not "physical embodiements[sic] of Chaos". Which I believe InvisibleBison has told you no fewer than three times. Possibly Ruck as well.

No, this has not been addressed, it has been dismissed by fiat. If it had been addressed, then Invisible Bison, the poster who posted the Epic Level Handbook version of protean, would have had to address this line from the ELH:

"Tainted with chaos at the time of their race's creation..."

This seems to confirm my point and negate yours. But I can see your objection coming!
'Taint and physical embodiment are different words.'
Devils are physical embodiments of Lawful Evil because, at their creation, they were tainted with Lawful Evil. It is a distinction without a difference to say a being tainted with chaos or a physical embodiment of chaos.

2) "MitD has been a stable character". This is your opinion, and the bits that aren't are wrong. He is the one that is actually switching allegiances. He is in fact changing. Could you assert he should be changing "more"? Sure, but that's where your opinion kicks in. There is nothing to debate, because regardless of how much he changes, you can always assert that he should change "more". I think he is changing just about enough for a lonely creature desperately trying to fit in and have friends. Which, again, opinion.

Opinion is a powerful tool, but I suppose I was not clear enough in my statement. Let me try again:
MitD has been level-headed and consistently portrayed as a character. He has not shown a mercurial temperament nor any overt hostility.

From ELH:
"This has imbued them with underlying hatred of all non-shapeshifting beings."

Certainly MitD can be the one protean that does not exhibit hatred for non-shaprshifters. But that is a major characterization point of proteans. Like the one tan goblin in a horde of green ones, this will take some explaining.

3) "I doubt a Protean could hold it together anywhere near that long.". This is, again, partially your opinion, and a mixture of known issue, outright wrong reading of the powerset (possibly because you were looking at the wrong powerset, which you then spent many posts trying to defend as "identical" even though it is not) and just wrong.

A misreading? Okay, let me read from the ELH again:

"Proteans have no natural shape; they always appear in flux."

Not sometimes, not usually. Pretty specific wording used there.

"Rarely does any attribute last for more than a minute. Even newborns are tides of flesh, ever changing...
Proteans are denied the stability most races enjoy."

Now, in comparison to the Pathfinder version, (which I only posted because I could not find a D&D version online,) these statements make the protean a less likely candidate, because at least the PF version has a natural form. The natural form of the D&D protean is 'in flux.'

In fact, since Invisible Bison posted the correct protean I have based all my comments on it, and not the PF version. Many posts have ridiculed my PF post as a way to dismiss points I made using the ELH version of protean.

Grey Wolf

*If MitD is in fact a protean

I acknowledge MitD may be a protean using some set of explanations of which I am not yet aware. To be considered a viable candidate, the pros and cons must be considered, and there are some solid pros. But in my opinion, they are vastly outweighed by the cons.

The creature that is portrayed in comic has shown no protean character traits. (Personality traits are irrelevant.) The author is on record as saying that we would be able to identify the monster species, even if only after the fact.

We cannot assume traits of the monster that do not fit MitD are absent because The Author wants to make a thematic statement. That would simply imply that any species would work if we adjusted it this way or that. And that would mean that, given the information available in comic, we would not be able to recognize the species before the reveal. This actually runs contrary to the author's direct statement on the topic.

Your ball.

[Crusher]

Huh.

I might get around to properly reading all of this, but I might not. If anyone made a MitD prediction over the last few pages that I haven't put in, please let me know.

[Ruck]

Repeatedly asserting that I am wrong is not the same as addressing my points. My points are only baseless if you ignore the original Epic Level Handbook version of the protean, posted by Invisible Bison some time back.

"Hagumemnons, also known as proteans, have no natural shape; they appear always in flux...
Their forms boil with possibility, and rarely does any attribute last for more than a minute. Even newborns are tides of flesh, ever changing."

It has been asserted that MitD could choose to not change, so the amorphous nature that characterizes proteans has been dismissed. This might be possible with Pathfinder proteans, which have a natural shape, but according to the ELH:

"Proteans are DENIED the stability that most races enjoy."

In other words, they cannot choose to maintain a shape for long periods of time, and are compelled to constantly flow between forms. Shape changing is not an ability they can invoke; it is a basic part of what they are.

And yet we see no evidence of this characteristic in the comic. Is MitD some kind of protean who can, in defiance of its basic nature, have a stable form? If so, is it then still a protean, or something else?

Here also from the SRD:

A protean can assume the shape of any combination of physical nondeific creatures at the same time as a free action. In fact, a protean’s form constantly boils, and it requires a move-equivalent action each round for a protean to maintain a certain shape (even if that shape is a combination of several shapes).

A Protean can maintain a certain shape by using a move action.

But a Protean also has a default size. It can change size if it chooses to manifest form as a specific creature, but otherwise its default fully-matured size is Large, as it is listed in the SRD as a Large Aberration:

A protean can assume the shape of any combination of physical nondeific creatures at the same time as a free action. ... The assumed form can be no smaller than a flea and no larger than 200 feet in its largest dimension.

Since MitD is constantly in the darkness, I'm not sure what the objection is here. We would not actually see the constant boiling and changing forms, but nor would we see MitD change size, since proteans don't do that by default.

Proteans cannot control the fact that their shape is constantly in flux.
Proteans cannot maintain a size category because they are compelled by their nature to constantly change.
A protean cannot even control if it has eyes much less how many for more than a minute or two.

This is not me misreading the monster description: this is me just reading what was written on the page.

So, again, to each of these:

1)Doesn't matter since MitD is constantly in the darkness. We can't see its form anyway, so how would we know if it's constantly changing?
2)Proteans change size if they choose to manifest as a specific creature. Otherwise, we have no reason to assume they constantly change size, and they have a listed size category. A Protean that is not trying to manifest a specific creature would look roughly like a Large (as an adult) blob of boiling flesh and mismatched parts.
3)A Protean can maintain a form using a move action. Beyond that, there are any number of valid reasons, either artistic or with in-world explanations, why MitD would always appear on the page with two eyes regardless of how much it is changing in the darkness. I'll just quote myself rather than write it anew:

Given how little movement we see the MITD make, it’s certainly possible that MITD is constantly using a move action to hold a form with two eyes (and probably a mouth in case someone brings stew). Indeed, given that a move action can be used in place of a standard action, even when we see MITD moving, it’s possible he’s using his standard action to hold form.

I think there are good explanations why MITD might do this (I’ll cover them in “Thematic Relevance”), but for now, what’s important is that a Protean can do this. It doesn’t need to be especially likely or common for a Protean to act this way to fit MITD; it only needs to be that a Protean is capable of doing so. (In addition, taking the effort to hold a more-or-less constant form may be why MITD is always so tired.)

It is also possible that MITD is not doing this, but any extra eyes he manifests continue to remain hidden in the darkness. Or that we don't actually see the same two eyes, it just so happens that every time we look at the monster, he happens to have two eyes that appear in the same place from our perspective.

Peelee has a theory that in a world that runs on the rules of storytelling, the camera placement and our view of MitD's eyes will always be set up so as not so spoil the surprise:

If an ever-shifting monster is kept as a surprise, the eyes will not spoil the surprise, because that's how the universe works.

In any case, there are multiple plausible explanations here for why we might not see MITD appear as we “expect” a Protean to appear. Rich's exact words on the subject are "Nothing from before strip #100 actually contradicts the truth of what [MITD] is," and appearing with two eyes, while unusual, does not contradict the truth of what a Protean is or can be.

(NobleCuriosity has a good post further elaborating on artistic reasons why Rich might depict a Protean MITD as having two consistent eyes-- specifically, the artistic convention of keeping one feature of a shapeshifter consistent so the audience knows which character it is-- as well as other points that supplement the case made in this post.)

And I'll add to the artistic points that constantly drawing MitD with a different number of eyes and eye placements would A)Be a huge giveaway to a crucial reveal in the story and B)Would make it very difficult to depict the MitD's reactions. (NobleCuriosity's linked post covers point B, and is worth reading generally as it touches on other details I didn't include here.)

Here's the relevant section in "Thematic Relevance" I mentioned in the above section:

This is my explanation for why he constantly holds his form to have two eyes: His two best friends have two eyes each (or, you know, did) and he wants to fit in. Grey Wolf had an excellent post in the previous thread detailing this idea further, and expanding another thematic point in favor of the Protean: Part of MITD’s struggle has been, as an ever-changing creature, to resist change in order to fit in and find friendship. It would also explain why MITD is perceived as being so lazy; if he's always using a move action to hold a form, it takes him twice as long to do things as other people. (Of course, if you accept one of the other explanations for his depiction, he doesn’t even have to be holding a form.)

So, I hope that provides some insight into your objections, and specifically at least that we have already considered and addressed them.

[Tzardok]

No, this has not been addressed, it has been dismissed by fiat. If it had been addressed, then Invisible Bison, the poster who posted the Epic Level Handbook version of protean, would have had to address this line from the ELH:

"Tainted with chaos at the time of their race's creation..."

This seems to confirm my point and negate yours. But I can see your objection coming!
'Taint and physical embodiment are different words.'
Devils are physical embodiments of Lawful Evil because, at their creation, they were tainted with Lawful Evil. It is a distinction without a difference to say a being tainted with chaos or a physical embodiment of chaos.

I generally agree with your point that the hagunemnon feels unfitting (but as I can't offer a better alternative, I generally keep mum in this discussion), but not with this point:

"Tainted by X" means that there is a base of Y to which X is added (usually to Y's detriment). "Embodiment of X" means that there is nothing but X. This is a significant difference. Saying devils are tainted by Lawful Evil is like saying that the night is tainted by darkness.
Or, to formulate it more pithy: A hagunemnon is flesh that was infused with chaos. A Pathfinder protean is chaos that pretends to be flesh.

Words mean things. Different words mean different things. One shouldn't just disregard those differences because one doesn't care about them.

[Ruck]

I generally agree with your point that the hagunemnon feels unfitting (but as I can't offer a better alternative, I generally keep mum in this discussion), but not with this point:

"Tainted by X" means that there is a base of Y to which X is added (usually to Y's detriment). "Embodiment of X" means that there is nothing but X. This is a significant difference. Saying devils are tainted by Lawful Evil is like saying that the night is tainted by darkness.
Or, to formulate it more pithy: A hagunemnon is flesh that was infused with chaos. A Pathfinder protean is chaos that pretends to be flesh.

Words mean things. Different words mean different things. One shouldn't just disregard those differences because one doesn't care about them.

Yeah, I meant to get so something on this but got focused on the specific points I was trying to address and forgot. If, say, you don't like lemon in your water and the restaurant serves lemon in your water, you could say the water is tainted with lemon. You wouldn't call it the embodiment of lemon juice.

[hamishspence]

Saying devils are tainted by Lawful Evil is like saying that the night is tainted by darkness.

The various "ex-celestial" devils are angels that are "tainted by Lawful evil". Devils that were created from mortal souls could be described as "mortal souls that were tainted by Lawful Evil due to the acts they committed in life". And so on.

The 3.5 descriptions of the Alignment Subtypes (as applied to outsiders) don't insist that such beings are the embodiment of those alignments. It allows for alignment change. And the description of Outsiders says that the outsider is partially composed of the essence of the relevant planes in the Outsider description - but not that they are completely composed of it.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm

Outsider Type

An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.

Evil Subtype

A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype.

[Tzardok]

It is correct, the alignment subtypes don't insist that outsiders are the embodiment of the alignments. The fluff of baatezu, on the other hand, does. Baatezu exist to be the embodiment of Lawful Evil, just like tanar'ri embody Chaotic Evil, Archons embody Lawful Good, Rilmani embody True Neutral and so on. Many, if not most, outsiders serve as the embodiments of some concept, and the great Outsider races are the embodiments of the alignments.

Also, I would say that the statement "a devil is a mortal soul stained by Lawful Evil" is wrong. The petitioner/soul shell/whatever term you want to use that comes to hell may be like that, but when it is processed into a lemur, everything else is "cooked out", until the pure Lawful Evil sublimates into a being.

Finally, we have examples in canon (admittedly more in 2e than 3.x) that embodiments of alignment whose alignment changes evolve into new shapes and things, changing their complete makeup. So saying that the ex-celestial devils were tainted by Lawful Evil was correct at some point in their existence, but now the change has completed and their makeup is completely replaced.

[hamishspence]

Lantern archons, lemures, etc are themselves petitioners (according to Manual of the Planes, for lantern archons, and Player's Guide to Faerun, for lemures).

Since petitioners are, in these cases, both outsider, and soul (body and soul forming one unit) the idea that the soul has been "cooked out" doesn't make sense in the context of 3.0-3.5.

A lantern archon isn't "just" a celestial - it's a mortal soul as well - albeit one that has lost its mortal memories.

[Tzardok]

3.x is self-contradictory in that regard. The Manual of Planes for example names manes as the petitioners of the Abyss and larvae as the petitioners of Hades. The Fiendish Codex 1 on the other hand describes the souls in the Abyss as larvae, and those are transformed into manes, dretches or rutterkin. The description of how lemures are made in Fiendish Codex 2 are made also involves processing and transforming, to the point that nothing of before remains. Describing it as "cooking out" is pretty apt, I think.

In cases like this, where 3.x contradicts itself, our only recourse is to draw on older canon. And for anything planar, that's Planescape. As I already told you in our discussion before, petitioners are the common souls of the dead, the NPCs that populate the planes. And the great outsider races that embody the alignments multiply by recruiting those petitioners and transmuting them into something new. Where they differ is in how discerning they are: Archons only chose those they believe to be able to fight the good fight, and offer the petitioner the choice. Devils and demons take everyone and let those who aren't suitable die.

In short, Lantern Archons used to be souls. Now they are something new, a kernel of pure Lawful Good.

Edit: Besides, even if we accept your position that Lantern Archons are petitioners, what's the point of calling them souls? You can't do anything with them anymore that you can do with souls. You certainly can't ressurect them anymore.
And I don't think saying there are both outsiders and souls means anything. What creature type would you give the unprocessed "soulshells" described in Fiendish Codex 2 after all?

[hamishspence]

Edit: Besides, even if we accept your position that Lantern Archons are petitioners, what's the point of calling them souls? You can't do anything with them anymore that you can do with souls. You certainly can't ressurect them anymore.

BOVD has rules for "soul-destroying" to power the creation of magic items - and it specifically states that this can be done with larvae - Hades petitioners (albeit less efficiently than with unmodified souls trapped in Trap the Soul gems) - and that night hags routinely sell larvae for precisely this purpose.

Similar principles apply to any petitioner, for the purpose of "Is this a Soul" rules questions.

[Tzardok]

BOVD has rules for "soul-destroying" to power the creation of magic items - and it specifically states that this can be done with larvae - Hades petitioners (albeit less efficiently than with unmodified souls trapped in Trap the Soul gems) - and that night hags routinely sell larvae for precisely this purpose.

Similar principles apply to any petitioner, for the purpose of "Is this a Soul" rules questions.

Ah, but you can't do it with Lantern Archons or Manes. In this case again, the Book of Vile Darkness draws on older canon where petitioner is the term for every soul in the afterlife, and the great outsider races recruit from amongst petitioners. Larvae were available as "easy to use" souls, but as soon as they got converted (into a lemure, a mane or other tanar'ri, a mezzoloth), they couldn't be used like that anymore. Their "soulness" is spent, so to speak. (Incidentally, larvae were in the older edition a special kind of petitioner that formed from especially vile people and appeared on every lower plane from Baator to the Abyss, a standardized form to easier faciliate the souls trade.)
All of this is simply more coherent than trying to involve Manual of the Plane's kinda-changed-but-not-really treatment of petitioners, and therefore more preferable.

It also has left the rails of the thread somewhere 2 km behind.

[hamishspence]

BoVD was written after Manual of the Planes though.

And Complete Divine, written after that (one of the first 3.5 splatbooks to deal with the afterlife) continues MotP's theme of "not all souls in the afterlife are petitioners".


The point being that fiends as "the embodiment of Evil" overstates things slightly - it is possible for a fiend to cease to be Evil and still be a fiend - still be "native to a Lower Plane" - and an Outsider, and have the Evil subtype.

An Extraplanar Outsider has a soul - though it's much more tied to the matter of its body than a mortal's soul is, and requires much more powerful magic to restore.

IMO it's reasonable to say that the soul in question "is the soul of the mortal that the Outsider was in life - it isn't a new soul, replacing a destroyed one.



so "Devils generally are, in essence, mortal souls tainted with Law and Evil" is valid terminology. and "are embodiments of Law and Evil" is less accurate, generally speaking.