OotS #661 is up!

[Asmor]

I don't think so. I don't think Rich made up everything that actually exists.

For instance I think things in the SRD/MM are all things that actually exist that were made up by somebody other than Rich.

Voadam: There are things which no one made up.

For example, no one made up Eagles, Monkeys, Sharks or Humans. Those are all things that actually exist.

Dragons, Sahuagin, Genies, The Tarrasque, those were all made up by someone. I can't tell you who, but I can guarantee it wasn't Rich Burlew.

So really the only possibility that's been suggested which is ruled out by the statement that it was made up by someone else is a baby snarl.

 

[Horatio]

Is it me or does the "Go" board piece setup look like a modron?

 

[freyar]

You know, if it's an abomination, it's not playing by the rules, since abominations are immune to mind-affecting effects, and Xykon clearly charmed/suggested the MitD at some point. (Maybe someone remembers the strip?)

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

How did Redcloak "recognize" what he was right away in Start of Darkness then?

I'm thinking people are over-thinking this one. It could be just a simple as the fact that Redcloak has lots of ranks in Knowledge: Religion, which would identify things like baby godlings.

 

[Dausuul]

You know, if it's an abomination, it's not playing by the rules, since abominations are immune to mind-affecting effects, and Xykon clearly charmed/suggested the MitD at some point. (Maybe someone remembers the strip?)

It wasn't an actual strip; it was in "Start of Darkness."

 

[Wolfwood2]

I'm thinking people are over-thinking this one. It could be just a simple as the fact that Redcloak has lots of ranks in Knowledge: Religion, which would identify things like baby godlings.

The thing for me is, Redcloak didn't seem god-level impressed by the Monster. He clearly thought it would be useful, but there was no, 'With this on our side, we cannot fail to triumph!' Nor has he ever shown the slightest concern about his ability (or at least, Xykon's ability) to handle the monster if it turned on them.

I almost wonder if Redcloak isn't decieved as to the Monster's true nature. He thinks he knows what it is, clearly. He believes he recognizes it. Is he correct?

 

[Particle_Man]

MitD also seems to be absolutely incapable of perceiving Gates. Is there a monster or race with this defect?

It reminds me of Lava Children from 1st ed., for whom metal simply did not exist.

 

[Nightson]

MitD also seems to be absolutely incapable of perceiving Gates. Is there a monster or race with this defect?

Wait, didn't we find out that the gates were hidden against deities or some such? Might just be confusing that with other macguffins.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The thing for me is, Redcloak didn't seem god-level impressed by the Monster. He clearly thought it would be useful, but there was no, 'With this on our side, we cannot fail to triumph!' Nor has he ever shown the slightest concern about his ability (or at least, Xykon's ability) to handle the monster if it turned on them.

Well, it could also be any of the various types of creatures that he might be able to identify with Knowledge: Religion. Mythic beasts might fall into this category. Though you are correct in pointing out that Redcloak could simply be wrong about its nature.

I like the idea that it could be something related to one of the other mythos, like the Greek gods, or the Norse. It doesn't necessarily have to be a D&D monster when Rick says he didn't "make it up himself." It could be something that has no D&D stats anywhere, but instead is a mythological creature.