MitD XIX: The Potted Plant Is Starting To Look Reasonable

[Peelee]

This is a repackaged Stormwind Fallacy, believing that it is impossible to create great characters by looking at the statblock you want them to have.

Nobody has ever said it is impossible to do this. People are saying that this is likely not how this author is telling this story, because we have quite a bit of commentary, both in books on on thr boards, from the author directly, about how he's telling s story he wants to tell. Not a story that he came up with after looking at stat blocks for inspiration. A story that is meaningful to him. Just because you might tell a story by looking at stat blocks for inspiration does not mean that this author telling this story is by necessity doing so.

Rich has a method for keeping all his other characters to the level of rules accuracy displayed in the comic.

Yes, he does. And that method is nothing like what you describe. He even drew a flowchart of his method, because he is incredibly accommodating and helpful. That does not read to me as the type of method someone who crafts stories around the base of a stat block would have.

[JNAProductions]

From your point of view. Not from its point of view, that's the whole point of Call of Cthulhu monsters not having an alignment.

So, if a character firmly believes (because they were raised in a cult or something) that the moral thing to do is to kill anyone they encounter, and that, in fact, it'd be immoral to not at least TRY to kill everyone they see, they'd be Good-aligned?

[halfeye]

So, if a character firmly believes (because they were raised in a cult or something) that the moral thing to do is to kill anyone they encounter, and that, in fact, it'd be immoral to not at least TRY to kill everyone they see, they'd be Good-aligned?

By their standards, yes. You and I may well disagree with their assessment.

There is dispute about whether there is any ultimate standard, I'm of the opinion there is not.

[JNAProductions]

By their standards, yes. You and I may well disagree with their assessment.

There is dispute about whether there is any ultimate standard, I'm of the opinion there is not.

In the real world, an objective standard is not something we can know for sure. And we shouldn't delve too deeply into this because it's almost certain to tread into forum-inappropriate topics.
In D&D, there are objective forces of Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil. They can literally Detect Evil.

[Tubercular Ox]

So, if a character firmly believes (because they were raised in a cult or something) that the moral thing to do is to kill anyone they encounter, and that, in fact, it'd be immoral to not at least TRY to kill everyone they see, they'd be Good-aligned?

Darn it, I hoped I'd deleted this in time.

Okay, the meds are kicking in, but I feel compelled to answer this.

The book example is that the more bizarre Call of Cthulhu monsters don't really see people as something to be moral over. We're like ants, or blades of grass, even if we're actually similarly sized creatures.

Rich is clearly playing with the book example on this matter, so it's not reliable, which is why I deleted the post. I think the more important point is that the Protean is listed as chaotic neutral, and not only does Xykon assume it should be more evil, but its story arc is projecting it towards good.

Whatever insight Rich had to realize that an omnicidal Chaotic Neutral being is just a few hugs away from being a friend of paladins, it is easier to have that insight for a monster without any alignment at all, and described mostly as following other people's orders.

I'm still here to show that the Protean is not the best fit, not to show that the Hunting Horror must be the answer, and in this area, the Hunting Horror fits more than a Protean.

[Keltest]

Darn it, I hoped I'd deleted this in time.

Okay, the meds are kicking in, but I feel compelled to answer this.

The book example is that the more bizarre Call of Cthulhu monsters don't really see people as something to be moral over. We're like ants, or blades of grass, even if we're actually similarly sized creatures.

Rich is clearly playing with the book example on this matter, so it's not reliable, which is why I deleted the post. I think the more important point is that the Protean is listed as chaotic neutral, and not only does Xykon assume it should be more evil, but its story arc is projecting it towards good.

Whatever insight Rich had to realize that an omnicidal Chaotic Neutral being is just a few hugs away from being a friend of paladins, it is easier to have that insight for a monster without any alignment at all, and is described mostly as following other people's orders.

I'm still here to show that the Protean is not the best fit, not to show that the Hunting Horror must be the answer, and in this area, the Hunting Horror fits more than a Protean.

The problem with your arguments is that all of the big issues are about the way the two different creatures don't fit. It doesn't really matter how well a monster can explain the Tower scene if it has no explanation for the Escape scene, to use an example, and going on about how great a fit it is for the Tower Scene doesn't make it suddenly able to accomplish the Escape.

[Ruck]

This is a repackaged Stormwind Fallacy, believing that it is impossible to create great characters by looking at the statblock you want them to have.

Nobody has ever said it is impossible to do this. People are saying that this is likely not how this author is telling this story, because we have quite a bit of commentary, both in books on on the boards, from the author directly, about how he's telling a story he wants to tell. Not a story that he came up with after looking at stat blocks for inspiration. A story that is meaningful to him. Just because you might tell a story by looking at stat blocks for inspiration does not mean that this author telling this story is by necessity doing so.

Well, thanks, Peelee, because this was both better-written and more succinct than what I was coming up with.

I'll just add that I never wrote "impossible." Please don't put words in my mouth.

Every time we wonder what its alignment is or will be, it fits a Hunting Horror, because a Hunting Horror doesn’t have a printed alignment that Rich can portray or contradict.

Every time it is confused by the people around it, or the people around it are confused by it, it fits a Hunting Horror, because it’s a creature from the d20 CoC equivalent of the Far Realms and this is what is supposed to happen.

Every time it accepts the authority of others with little to no introspection, it fits a Hunting Horror, because the Hunting Horror is written to accept the authority of people weaker than it.

Even when O-Chul orders it to think for itself, it fits a Hunting Horror, because it is still accepting his authority.

And every time it’s revealed as a child, it fits a Hunting Horror, because the Hunting Horror is a Huge Dragon and Rich needed a Large Dragon.

Every time we see him in the sunshine talking about how much he loves the sunshine, or see him expressing a desire to be in the light, he can't be a Hunting Horror, because that directly contradicts one of its most prominent traits.

By comparison, what the Protean brings to the table is an undying hatred of nonshapechanging beings and a quest to find more shapes to shapechange into. Deleting that and inserting a story Ruck wrote after seeing what the goal was shouldn't qualify as fitting.

I fail to see how I am "inserting a story" any more than you are. Or even as much as you are. My description of MitD as "a powerful creature expected to be a villain who has to find the power to change" is a statement I can entirely support with evidence in the text.

But the MITD doesnt hate the light, isn't at all violent and doesn't devour anything besides regular food.

Yes. When the Monster in the Dark deviates from the Hunting Horror, Rich tells us through Xykon's expectations. Xykon thinks it's a standard Hunting Horror and is frustrated (or whatever instead) when it isn't.

So when the Hunting Horror is deviated from, that's a sign of good storytelling.
But when the Protean is deviated from, that's just bad.

Is that right?

No, it's always been a matter of scale, which is why I was so whiny about having a standard a page or so ago. This exact point here, where my candidate sins at 1/10th the scale as other candidates, but because we did not negotiate in advance how much sinning is allowed, I'm painted as a hypocrite.

Because you are outright discarding the biggest pieces of evidence against the Hunting Horror-- MITD's clear enjoyment of and desire to be in light-- and writing the multiple instances off as "deviating from expectations," with no explanation how a Hunting Horror is deviating or could deviate from those expectations-- and thus, without a case for why the "deviating from expectations" argument can't be made for every creature to explain away the elements that don't fit.

If Rich chose Hunting Horror for MitD, he could have easily just not drawn strips where the MITD enjoys the sunlight or expresses desire to have light shone on him.

---

EDIT: I wanted to add an addendum and build on Peelee's post, because I think the question of how Rich approaches storytelling and what kind of stories he wants to tell is an important one.

People are saying that this is likely not how this author is telling this story, because we have quite a bit of commentary, both in books on on thr boards, from the author directly, about how he's telling s story he wants to tell.

I think some of Rich's comments on how view of storytelling are very important here.

no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism.

Stories exist primarily for the purpose of delivering messages to one another, whether about human nature, or the world around us, or what have you. They are how humans have communicated life lessons since the dawn of language, and probably before. Whether or not that is why you read them, that is definitely why people write them. If the story is incapable of delivering the message that the author is trying to send about how they see the world, then that is a failure of the story, and the story needs to change. The author should not leave out his or her message so as not to disrupt the delicate story. That's the cart leading the horse.

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil.

I think these comments indicate what he prioritizes in the stories he tells and his reasons for telling stories.

Ox's storytelling reasons for the Hunting Horror, from what I can tell, are a combination of "Rich looked at the stat block and saw cool stuff he liked" and "the Snarl is an Eldritch abomination, so Rich is using Call of Cthulhu."

But given Rich's own words above, particularly as regards what he considers important about storytelling and how he uses storytelling to communicate his ideas, I fail to see how "It has cool stats and connects to the world of Lovecraft" is more along the lines of how Rich approaches storytelling than "You don't have to be what other people expect of you, you can be your own person who follows your own heart, and you can change if you put your mind to it" is.

[Errorname]

I'd say that being able to fit MITD's comics behaviour into how the creature is described as typically behaving feels like a point against, since MITD pretty clearly does not behave like a typical member of his species.

[Tzardok]

Also, the Ox is wrong about the Hunting Horror (or Mythos monsters in general) having no alignment. The appendix of the Call of Cthulhu D20 sourcebook includes a section "Using Call of Cthulhu material in a D&D game". And there every monster in the book is given an official alignment (Hunting Horrors are Chaotic Evil, by the way).

[Ruck]

I'd say that being able to fit MITD's comics behaviour into how the creature is described as typically behaving feels like a point against, since MITD pretty clearly does not behave like a typical member of his species.

Right, I don't think "expected behavior" is a good metric for deciding what the MitD is. It does have to be mechanically capable of what we've seen it do, but arguments like Ox's at the end of the last page seem to be arguing from personality:

Hunting Horror
No alignment
Easily confused, easily confuses
Prone to following orders
Kill on Command
Devour sentients
Hate the Light

Protean
undying hatred of all shapechanging beings
seeking new creatures to duplicate
slaying others after copying them

Xykon
Thinks the Monster in the Dark should kill on command
Thinks the Monster in the Dark should devour children
Thinks the Monster in the Dark should never leave the dark

(as well as an assumption that Xykon is somehow feeding us clues, which I don't think is very well founded.)

And his argument seems to be rather convenient / special pleading to me. When MitD doesn't behave like a Protean, that's evidence he isn't one. But when he doesn't behave like a Hunting Horror, that's evidence Rich is showing us about how he's not typical for his species, and thus actually further proof he is a Hunting Horror.

This is particularly confounded by his mixing in a mechanical element as a personality / behavior element; the Hunting Horror doesn't just "hate the light," it's actively damaged by it. Which gets to my point about mechanics and I think the same one Keltest is making: MitD's personality may not be typical for his species, but as far as we're led to believe, his stats, strengths, and weaknesses are. So something that mechanically should happen for a particular species, and doesn't-- let alone is something Rich knowingly wrote and drew in the exact opposite manner of how it would work-- at least needs an attempt to explain why it doesn't beyond "He's just different." Similarly, while I think the storytelling reasons make the Protean the best choice, they also wouldn't matter if MitD was shown doing things impossible for a Protean and we had already eliminated it mechanically.

(Plus, he's just factually wrong about the alignment, per Tzardok's post. And he's referenced "no alignment" multiple times in the last handful of posts, so he must consider it important to his argument.)

[halfeye]

In the real world, an objective standard is not something we can know for sure. And we shouldn't delve too deeply into this because it's almost certain to tread into forum-inappropriate topics.
In D&D, there are objective forces of Law, Good, Chaos, and Evil. They can literally Detect Evil.

In Stickworld, D&D only applies tangentially.

[Tzardok]

Disagree. D&D is still at the core of the Stickworld. Yes, Rich doesn't care about rule minutiae, but the world still follows the rules broadly, the planes and embodiments of the alignments still exist, spells to determine them exist.
In short, we do have an objective standard. It's written down in flaming letters.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In Stickworld, D&D only applies tangentially.

OotS runs on D&D rules until shown otherwise.

But don't take it from me, take it from Rich:

As far as this thread goes, or any other attempt to align the events of the comic with D&D, my suggestion is to treat the comic as if it is based on "OOTS RPG," a hypothetical game that is exactly like D&D in every way—except for those ways that the comic shows that it isn't. Everything is D&D until proven otherwise

You want to claim that D&D alingment rules don't apply? Show comic proof that it doesn't. But as far as I am kown, you ain't got anything to find, since the comic very clearly runs on the alignment rules.

Grey Wolf

[Errorname]

And his argument seems to be rather convenient / special pleading to me. When MitD doesn't behave like a Protean, that's evidence he isn't one. But when he doesn't behave like a Hunting Horror, that's evidence Rich is showing us about how he's not typical for his species, and thus actually further proof he is a Hunting Horror.

Yeah, I think you can reasonably identify flaws with the Protean proposal, but the Hunting Horror has a lot of the same ones and frankly it has them worse as well as some unique ones of it's own. The only one it doesn't share is the eyes thing

[Metastachydium]

I think the divide here is that you see it more as all-or-nothing-- either he is aware of everything he can do or nothing he can do. Whereas I have a much easier time accepting that maybe he knows how to hold a face (or limbs, i.e. the stomp scene) without knowing he can draw on creatures and powers much more vast and greater than that.

(And, of course, there are at least three possible explanations already proposed why MitD would appear that way even if he isn't holding a face in place.)

The thing is, once more, that while it doesn't have to be all or nothing, the notion that
a. he is perfectly capable of doing the one thing that does in fact require deliberate effort and active awareness constantly;
b. except on two or three occasions when it is convenient for him not to be able to; and
c. he somehow does both in the Circus scene
is something I will consider highly dubious.

(As for the proposed explanations, I have explained why I find each lackluster or very lackluster, so…)

See, I disagree here. I don't think the story is based in the stat block. I think it's based in the story.

"You know what the story is based on? The story. The story is based on the story. Crazy, huh?" (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[mashlagoo1982]

Is there an Ex ability a protean could copy that would replicate the effects of the "Stop" scene?

It looks to be either Command (halt) or Fear (pass check causing shaken).

The thing is, once more, that while it doesn't have to be all or nothing, the notion that
a. he is perfectly capable of doing the one thing that does in fact require deliberate effort and active awareness constantly;
b. except on two or three occasions when it is convenient for him not to be able to; and

I can buy into the idea of the protean controlling its shape because that is an inherent ability of the creature itself.

I can also buy into the idea of the protean not controlling the abilities it is granted from copying the shapes of others because they are not inherent to the protean... they are something it is getting from another creature type instead.

Basically, it knows and understands what it can do, but it doesn't really understand what it is gaining from other creatures.

[Tzardok]

A dragon's Frightful Presence, if you are willing to allow it a bit creativity with what activates it.

But IMO the "STOP!" scene is not a fear effect (at best an Intimidation skill check). It just shouts really loudly.

[mashlagoo1982]

A dragon's Frightful Presence, if you are willing to allow it a bit creativity with what activates it.

But IMO the "STOP!" scene is not a fear effect (at best an Intimidation skill check). It just shouts really loudly.

Yeah, I agree that fear isn't a good fit. I was more thinking the fear spell itself where both Haley and Belkar made their save throws. This would mean they were shaken for one round.

Command seems to be a better fit. Just change "halt" to "stop".

I had not considered Intimidate... would that work?

[Metastachydium]

Is there an Ex ability a protean could copy that would replicate the effects of the "Stop" scene?

It looks to be either Command (halt) or Fear (pass check causing shaken).

Intimidate +47, natively.

I can buy into the idea of the protean controlling its shape because that is an inherent ability of the creature itself.

I can also buy into the idea of the protean not controlling the abilities it is granted from copying the shapes of others because they are not inherent to the protean... they are something it is getting from another creature type instead.

Basically, it knows and understands what it can do, but it doesn't really understand what it is gaining from other creatures.

I'm gonna say a big nope to that. Maintaining a shape is not the baseline of a Protean's innate abilities. It's a required secondary power to mitigate the possible issues with its actual main feature, a willy-nilly constant, free action shapeshifting. In fact, knowing how to maintain its features makes zero sense if it doesn't know its features are changing.

[mashlagoo1982]

Intimidate +47, natively.



I'm gonna say a big nope to that. Maintaining a shape is not the baseline of a Protean's innate abilities. It's a required secondary power to mitigate the possible issues with its actual main feature, a willy-nilly constant, free action shapeshifting. In fact, knowing how to maintain its features makes zero sense if it doesn't know its features are changing.

I agree that maintaining it's shape is not the baseline for a protean. However, the ability to do so is on the stat sheet of the protean itself. So, it could realistically be able to perform this action if it desires, even if it does not know it is a protean.

Where-as the abilities it is copying are not native to the protean. So it maybe doesn't understand what they are, how to activate them, or even that it has them.

[Tzardok]

The thing is that a protean needs to spend actions to maintain a shape. It can't do so while asleep, for example. Yet the MitD's eyes and size remain the same, even while asleep.

Now, one could claim that it was under some kind of stabilizing spell or wore a magic item in that direction, but I find such explanations contrived.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The thing is that a protean needs to spend actions to maintain a shape. It can't do so while asleep, for example. Yet the MitD's eyes and size remain the same, even while asleep.

How do you know that he still has eyes while he is sleeping? Generally, eyes are hidden behind some kind of lid to prevent light from waking the sleeper up. That's what those curved lines represent in the comic. Those ain't eyes, they are shorthand for "the eyes are not visible anymore". Whether that's because MitD has eyelids or because the proteans autonomic system has disposed of the eyes to make sleep easier, we cannot tell. All we can tell is "the eyes aren't visible anymore".

Heck, it's ridiculous to start with that, whatever MitD is, he'd sleep with his face aligned with the rather high window of his box. Almost every creature I can picture would lay down its head such that it wouldn't be lined up, so the very fact we can see the eye lines at all is just the tell that he is asleep*, just as the "he is saying 'zzzzzz'" is a tell he is lightly snoring, despite that probably only being the sounds a human makes and would not apply to any other species.

Grey Wolf

*And I don't mean just the head. Like, I'd expect most creatures to lay down to sleep. Not many species sleep standing up.

[Tubercular Ox]

He even drew a flowchart of his method, because he is incredibly accommodating and helpful. That does not read to me as the type of method someone who crafts stories around the base of a stat block would have.

Yes, exactly my point! Using only his own intuition and an apathy for the rules, Rich attracted the kind of audience that gets concerned when Tsukiko doesn't have enough barred schools, despite barred schools not being a plot point for Tsukiko, and despite the schools of the spells Tsukiko is casting not being mentioned.

But Rich did not trust his apathy to help him write the Protean, so instead he set up excuses that let him ignore its personality, feats, skills, SLA's, and special abilities.

If other people want to believe that Rich promised us an OotsWorld RPG that is 3.5 except when it isn't, then the argument is the same. Rich's interpretation of that promise attracted the kind of audience that is concerned for Tsukiko, but interpreted that promise completely differently in order to enable a Protean that doesn't follow its stat block.

I don't care what Rich's method actually is, he still abandoned it to write the Protean.

Every time we see him in the sunshine

We never see this.

talking about how much he loves the sunshine, or see him expressing a desire to be in the light, he can't be a Hunting Horror, because that directly contradicts one of its most prominent traits.

So rather than settle the issue of why the Protean is held to a different standard than every other character, you try to move on to different flaws of the example monster. I expected this, and it’s why I wanted to talk about the standard before bringing up a monster you could easily change the subject to.

The Protean has that eyes/mouth/limb thing, which directly contradicts one of its most prominent traits, and people are still searching for a comic that is half as good as the comic that excuses the Hunting Horror’s weakness to light.

There are people who reject as too surreal the Hunting Horror flaw that Rich actually took time to write about, while accepting that a Protean flaw doesn’t need any excuse beyond what they can make up.

The Protean has that shapeshifting thing, which is supposed to be key to the story, and Rich can’t find a way to mention it in the story at all. Meanwhile, for the light weakness, Rich made it a thing that the monster always hesitates before going into the light, which is actually a problem for the Protean, because it has no reason to hesitate like that except what people make up for it.

The Hunting Horror’s flaws are worked into the story better than the Protean’s flaws.

[mashlagoo1982]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

TBH the eyes discussion isn't a problem to me.

I saw it as an artistic decision by Rich to match the style of the universe and as a simple way to convey MitD expression.

All the arguments about the eyes not being in flux mean nothing to me because I don't buy into the necessity of an explanation.

Not trying to convince anyone to change their opinion, explaining why it isn't an issue for me.

I was more trying to explain how if MitD is a protean, how I could see Rich explaining the inconsistent access to powers outside its own listed on the protean stat sheet.

[Tzardok]

How do you know that he still has eyes while he is sleeping? Generally, eyes are hidden behind some kind of lid to prevent light from waking the sleeper up. That's what those curved lines represent in the comic. Those ain't eyes, they are shorthand for "the eyes are not visible anymore". Whether that's because MitD has eyelids or because the proteans autonomic system has disposed of the eyes to make sleep easier, we cannot tell. All we can tell is "the eyes aren't visible anymore".
.

I don't buy that. The same argument could be used to claim the MitD doesn't have eyes at all. After all, those are just shorthand for the emotions it expresses. In truth, it is blind and eyeless (uvuudaum supporters, take note.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't buy that. The same argument could be used to claim the MitD doesn't have eyes at all. After all, those are just shorthand for the emotions it expresses. In truth, it is blind and eyeless (uvuudaum supporters, take note.)

OK, then present a creature that sleep standing up. 'Cause Cipactli probably would lay down to sleep, just like every other bipod, so how come we can see its eyelids? Are you suggesting perhaps that there is a template that allows creature to sleep standing up?

GW

[Tzardok]

First, the cipactli is quadrupedal, thank you very much. Second, every single bird sleeps standing up; the concept isn't that strange that I'd need to invent a template for it (also, templates generally don't care about such details; half-fiend doesn't even mention effects on life-span. Minor pet pieve of mine). For all we know the MitD lays its head on its back when sleeping, ensuring that it isn't any lower asleep than awake.

[Metastachydium]

Generally, eyes are hidden behind some kind of lid to prevent light from waking the sleeper up. That's what those curved lines represent in the comic. Those ain't eyes, they are shorthand for "the eyes are not visible anymore". Whether that's because MitD has eyelids or because the proteans autonomic system has disposed of the eyes to make sleep easier, we cannot tell. All we can tell is "the eyes aren't visible anymore".

…which is why Likeable Death Worm is consistently depicted with such bent lines to signify that it doesn't have eyes! (Come on.)

OK, then present a creature that sleep standing up.

Besides BIRDIES, yes, many quadrupeds actually default to sleeping standing up, and bipeds such as humans can do the same so long as they have something to support their body against. Further, we have, in fact, seen bipeds depicted as sleeping while sitting that looked barely shorter than while standing up and whose heads didn't stoop forward.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

First, the cipactli is quadrupedal, thank you very much. Second, every single bird sleeps standing up; the concept isn't that strange that I'd need to invent a template for it (also, templates generally don't care about such details; half-fiend doesn't even mention effects on life-span. Minor pet pieve of mine). For all we know the MitD lays its head on its back when sleeping, ensuring that it isn't any lower asleep than awake.

I've seen it depicted both biped and quadrupedal, and either way it definitely is not going to sleep with its head lined up with the window. A bird, it is not. And even a bird, hides away their eyes while sleeping to the point there is no eyes to see (and even when one eye is visible, the other will be hidden on the other side of their head). So my point stands: those are not eyelids, those are tells.

GW

[Metastachydium]

So my point stands: those are not eyelids, those are tells.

Just as LWD's nonexistent bent lines are tells. (Come on. Still.)

Put another way: absurdist request: show me a creature without eyes depicted as having "totally-not-eyelids" for the reader's benefit.