PDA

View Full Version : Allies of the Mind Flayer: TSR vs. WotC



Umael
2009-08-28, 03:08 PM
I was looking at Lords of Madness recently, when I recalled an article I read in the Dragon Magazine (way back when TSR was first publishing it) called "Ecology of the Mind Flayer".

What struck me is how the mind flayer of TSR and the mind flayer of WotC had a difference of opinion on what kind of allies the mind flayer has and why.

According to "Ecology of the Mind Flayer" (http://rexvenom.blogspot.com/2009/01/ecology-of-mind-flayer.html):


“They keep terrible guardians. Wererats, beholders, and grimlocks work with them - the beholders on somewhat of a more even basis than the other two races, which are used as fighters in the illithids’ wars. Their cities are open to some devils and the rakshasas, but these are rarely seen. Hellcats will serve them, mites will inhabit the ruins around them, and they are known to sometimes employ ogre magi.

“All of these horrible allies have one thing in common - they are not creatures an illithid would eat. Beholders are protected by their armor. Ogre magi can heal their own wounds, wererats are poisoned with the disease of lycanthropy, grimlocks are scaled and foul to the taste, mites are all but brainless, and the rest of their cohorts are all spirits from other planes.

This contradicts what "Lords of Madness" say (which I will not quote), in which there are a number of variant species on the mind flayer, a number of strange... pets?... and that there are a number of thralls (slaves) in their cities, but there is no mention of most of the above races. In fact, grimlocks are actually mentioned as potential food sources and hosts for ceremorphosis. Furthermore, it mentions that mind flayers are actually afraid of the undead, as they have no mind to control or attack and no brain to eat.

Thoughts on this discrepancy?

shadzar
2009-08-28, 03:17 PM
Without trying to devolve into an edition war...WotC had no reason to uphold that which TSR set out. They did what they want as it is there's now.

Gnomes no longer in PHB for example....

There is nothing really that anyone could say on the matter except for the persons that wrote the LoM as to why the changes were made. (Whatever they are.)

I would wager Richard Baker had something strongly to do with it as many major changes in things seem to be his ideas, or projects he works on, so you might want to ask him?

Umael
2009-08-28, 03:21 PM
Well, yes, edition wars and what not.

Let me ask you this then.

Should, say, undead be terrifying forces to the mind flayers because of their mindlessness or their ability to function immune to mental powers or the fact that they can't be eaten?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-28, 03:22 PM
TSR seems to have a few oddities. Why would you keep around as "minions" things that you've singled out as specifically posing some sort of threat to you? That's risky. They're mind flayers, not zombies; they don't befriend things simply because they've eaten the brains of everything else. I expect mind flayers would want to stay in-house, with things they know they can control because A) They have a direct psionic link, or B) They made it themselves, so they know it's done right. In that, I agree with WotC. I view Illithids as mostly sticking to, "If you want it done right, do it yourself". They ruled the world, saved their race, all by themselves; and they're not going to stoop to allying with these weak-minded cretins without clear dominance.

kjones
2009-08-28, 03:34 PM
I'll admit that I have trouble imagining beholders serving under illithids - I just don't think a beholder would be willing to consider himself subservient in that way.

Umael
2009-08-28, 03:43 PM
I'll admit that I have trouble imagining beholders serving under illithids - I just don't think a beholder would be willing to consider himself subservient in that way.

Given how xenophobic and paranoid the beholder is (at least, according to "Lords of Madness"), I don't either. "Ecology of the Mind Flayer" mentioned that the beholders were more of an equal, but then, so were rakshasas and devils.

I wonder about the wererats from "Ecology" though. The idea of lycanthrope being like a disease, rendering the brain inedible and the host unsuitable, appeals to me.

Lapak
2009-08-28, 03:55 PM
I can definitely see the mind flayers wanting allies - everyone in a world as dangerous as most D&D worlds should need allies, or at least cannon fodder that thinks it's an ally, sometimes. Thralls are pretty dumb, and sometimes you need people that can, you know, think unaided. And quite frankly, it would be tough to believe that anything they can eat would choose to be an ally. So lycanthropes, fiends, and the undead definitely make for sensible options.

Beholders, hrm. Beholders I can see as putting themselves forward as equal partners in specific endeavors, alone or in very small groups, but any long-term alliance would probably break down. OH! Unless both sides found it beneficial and the two groups found that they were interested in different things - maybe the beholders live near a mind flayer base, and the two groups agree to aid in each others' defense. The flayers get any captives, and the beholders get any treasure. If either actually enters the area controlled by the other, that individual is fair game to be killed outright. I can see something like that leading to a longer-term alliance.

So yeah, I guess I can see the TSR format working at least as well as the WotC. You can make an argument either way, though.

RandomNPC
2009-08-28, 04:03 PM
I'm a fan of being afraid of the undead, outside of that the monsters in my world are a part of my world, not some pre-fabricated mess.

however I'm going to side with the older of the two, sounds more fun, and I don't like the newer history.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-08-28, 06:51 PM
I can definitely see the mind flayers wanting allies - everyone in a world as dangerous as most D&D worlds should need allies, or at least cannon fodder that thinks it's an ally, sometimes. Thralls are pretty dumb, and sometimes you need people that can, you know, think unaided. And quite frankly, it would be tough to believe that anything they can eat would choose to be an ally. So lycanthropes, fiends, and the undead definitely make for sensible options.

Beholders, hrm. Beholders I can see as putting themselves forward as equal partners in specific endeavors, alone or in very small groups, but any long-term alliance would probably break down. OH! Unless both sides found it beneficial and the two groups found that they were interested in different things - maybe the beholders live near a mind flayer base, and the two groups agree to aid in each others' defense. The flayers get any captives, and the beholders get any treasure. If either actually enters the area controlled by the other, that individual is fair game to be killed outright. I can see something like that leading to a longer-term alliance.

So yeah, I guess I can see the TSR format working at least as well as the WotC. You can make an argument either way, though.

Something came to me that could explain long term beholder-mind flayer treatries: Hive Mothers and Overseers. Both of the are in Lords of Madness, and they're basically the only things outside of plot that can force Beholders to stick together.

I imagine somehow either the group of Beholders or a hunting party of Mind Flayers came across the other race, and, for whatever reason, decided against killing each other. Perhaps orignally the Mind Flayers dominated the Hive Mother, but it is possible that both races realized that they had a unique opportunity and ran with it.

Alternatively, the Mind Flayers dominated just the Hive Mother, laughed, and took the rest of the Beholders back with them. After a while, the lower ordered beholders came to agree with the Mind Flayers, making the Hive Mother obsolete.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-28, 06:54 PM
Thralls are pretty dumb, and sometimes you need people that can, you know, think unaided. And quite frankly, it would be tough to believe that anything they can eat would choose to be an ally.

That's why you breed your own. Thinking, yet subservient. If they really need the reassurance, make their brains horrible-tasting. Still more reliable than an outsider.

FoE
2009-08-28, 07:15 PM
I'll note that the 1E Mind Flayer did not have the ability to create thralls and did not reproduce through ceremorphosis (or at least that was never spelled out). So of course they would seek allies to help protect them.

I'll also note "The Ecology of the Mind Flayer" states that mind flayers do not have to eat brains. They relish the taste and consider a symbolic act.

shadow_archmagi
2009-08-28, 07:49 PM
Mind flayers are an entire race of frail, arrogant creatures who despise physical labor/combat.

They were MADE to have minions.

Ogres, trolls, golems, whatever. Something big enough to be useful and dumb enough that you can feel superior to it with no worries whatsoever. And weak-willed enough so that if it ever feels uppity...


Beholders are also decent friends, because they provide a nice "LASER LASER LASER" element tactically, plus you can be xenophobic and arrogant together.

Umael
2009-08-28, 08:37 PM
I'll note that the 1E Mind Flayer did not have the ability to create thralls and did not reproduce through ceremorphosis (or at least that was never spelled out). So of course they would seek allies to help protect them.

I'll also note "The Ecology of the Mind Flayer" states that mind flayers do not have to eat brains. They relish the taste and consider a symbolic act.

1E Dragons didn't get up to even 20HD, nor did they cast spells. Somewhere along the way, someone said, "Hey, why don't we make the iconic monsters of Dungeons & Dragons, you know... tough?"

In a similar vein, I believe some designer woke up and realized that 1E Mind Flayers really needed to have thralls. Because you know, big psionic race, mind control big part of the theme of psionics...

So an upgrade was kind of a good idea, in my opinion.

As for ceremorphosis, 1E never said how mind flayers were created. And brain eating? Could be a mistake on the githyanki who told them. After all, they also mention in "Ecology" that the tentacles were bone-ridged and just crushed the skull, while "Lords of Madness" says that they produce a really nasty enzyme that dissolves the skull.

Lapak
2009-08-28, 09:31 PM
1E Dragons didn't get up to even 20HD, nor did they cast spells. Somewhere along the way, someone said, "Hey, why don't we make the iconic monsters of Dungeons & Dragons, you know... tough?"Dragons did breathe fire for a set amount of damage (their HP) rather than a rolled amount, which at the start of a combat was pretty brutal. Especially since the PCs - and MOST especially wizards - also had a much lower hit point total. Saving throws were generally worse, and there were fewer ways to improve them, and death was MUCH less easily reversible. So all of the iconic monsters had lethal save-or-dies, and were highly likely to take out at least one party member before going down themselves.

Zaydos
2009-08-28, 10:58 PM
Mind flayers are an entire race of frail, arrogant creatures who despise physical labor/combat.

They were MADE to have minions.

Ogres, trolls, golems, whatever. Something big enough to be useful and dumb enough that you can feel superior to it with no worries whatsoever. And weak-willed enough so that if it ever feels uppity...

I couldn't agree more. In my last game the mind flayers had umber hulk minions, big enough to be useful and aberrations allowing the two to come from the same world (the illithids being from another Prime in the game).
As for beholders allies in 2e Spelljammer they were specifically only xenophobic when dealing with other beholders that varied from them in anyway and spelljamming beholders were willing to ally with non-beholders more readily by far than with other beholders. Of course this still assumed the presence of a hive mother. I know Spelljammer was just one setting but it did give a lot on beholders (hive mothers and overseers for example) and explored both beholder and illithid culture.

FoE
2009-08-29, 12:06 AM
And brain eating? Could be a mistake on the githyanki who told them. After all, they also mention in "Ecology" that the tentacles were bone-ridged and just crushed the skull, while "Lords of Madness" says that they produce a really nasty enzyme that dissolves the skull.

No, the 1E Monster Manual described the Mind Flayer using his tentacles to penetrate a victim's skull and eat it. I own the book and just looked it up.

So clearly the nature of the mind flayer has evolved throughout the various editions of D&D, although a few key details — tentacles and brain-eating, for instance —*have remained the same.

Umael
2009-08-29, 12:35 AM
No, the 1E Monster Manual described the Mind Flayer using his tentacles to penetrate a victim's skull and eat it. I own the book and just looked it up.

So clearly the nature of the mind flayer has evolved throughout the various editions of D&D, although a few key details — tentacles and brain-eating, for instance —*have remained the same.

Hence, mind flayers evolved from having a cultural taste to a niche cerebellivore.

(By the by, bad communication on my part. I meant in my earlier post to discuss the differences in how the illithid gets to the brain, not whether or not it actually goes for it.)

You know, a number of people have voiced their opinion that mind flayers should have allies (especially beholders), but they haven't said much about the suggested allies from "Ecology". Namely, rakshasas, devils, were-rats, grimlocks, mites, and various undead.

Well, okay, someone mentioned that undead were scary. Even to illithids.

FoE
2009-08-29, 12:44 AM
I've heard that mind flayers find undead abhorrent and contact with the mind of a powerful undead can be traumatic.

Which sort of makes sense, though it takes away from the ultra-badass mystique of illithids, especially with undead being so common in D&D.

The one issue with illithids is that I don't think they would tolerate an equally powerful being to fight alongside them, so rakhasas and devils are out.

Grimlocks make a bit more sense if you kept the rationale that their brains are foul-tasting.

I'll note that mind flayers do keep chuuls as pets and sentries. At least that's according to my 4E MM.

shadzar
2009-08-29, 05:42 AM
Well, yes, edition wars and what not.

Let me ask you this then.

Should, say, undead be terrifying forces to the mind flayers because of their mindlessness or their ability to function immune to mental powers or the fact that they can't be eaten?

Why? Even though undead may have some immunities to Mind Flayers, do the other creatures they control have the immunities, or could mind flayers just not clear out undead using a horde of goblins or kobolds?

I have never really followed any edition as to ecologies, and always altered to make more sense for my own game.

For me they were a starting point to get an idea behind the reason this collection of limbs and abilities exist in material form within the world.

I dislike psionics within my games, so even changed the mind flayers abilities so they would not longer be psionic because that is all just stupid within the game as far as I am concerned and has no place in it.

But I am not the writer of LoM, and cannot answer any of the reasons the company deemed to change since I have not seen the changes. I can only gues that the author of the content just decided to publish their own version of the monster as I use my own homebrew version of them.

The question them becomes should a designer try to publish his homebrew adaptation of the game and hope that everyone will like it, or stick with what works, and keep his personal preferences to himself?

I wouldn't try to publish my version of the mind flayer because some of the strange people out there like psionics in D&D, so why should I deprive them of what they enjoy?

My version of the mind flayer would not be bothered by undead as they are not immune to magic and thus the abilities would work normally for those that are applicable. Not sure what all they are at the moment cause my Monstrous Manual is in the car, but I am sure something would come up to be able to be used.

I probably wouldn't put them purposefully in the same areas anyway unless there was to be a conflict between undead and mind flayers that mattered to the game, or that the layers could interact with. While it is likely to occur within a world, I would have fun theorizing it, but only make use of the finding from that theoretical if it posed interesting for the game, or the information from a past occurrence was wanted/needed by the players.

I have actually never been asked that question before about mind flayers vs undead. You made me have to think about something new after 20 years of playing. :smallbiggrin:

So I would say use the ecology you prefer when running games, whether new or old, as each game is unique to its players and never played the same way or under the same rules, unless some RPGA event.

Companies change their products over time for good or ill, and seems the mind flayer change has found an ill spot to you to ponder it. Just use the ecology you like best, if there is one present for the edition/game you use or seek one out form another for your use if you don't wish to fully create your own ecology.

Very thought provoking topic, thanks for it. :smallsmile:

shadow_archmagi
2009-08-29, 09:08 AM
Devils would be a removed ally (removed as in distant), I think. Someone the mind flayers call in when they really need it, and someone they hate calling in because of the high price.

"Ah, greetings Lord Eniws Gnitaehc, it is absolutely wretched to see you again. I'm afraid we're having the most difficult time with a rather persistent bunch of fellows fighting for "The Greater Good" I'm sure you know the type. Anyway, the gold and thrallsouls are ready for transit if you're interested."

Beholders, I think, would be kept around in relatively small numbers and spread out across the entire community. Ogres would have their own barracks and community, while still remaining subservient. The mind flayers scry and recon to let them know where to strike for maximum loot, and in return the ogres make sure to nab a few prisoners on their way back.

Wererats, I think, are just scavengers, taking the bits of meat that the ogres and flayers leave behind, gnawing bones and only let live because their usefulness as spies and minions outweighs the minor effort of a "pest extermination"

Grimlocks occupy a traditional servitory role, having been mind-crushed into permanent minion status.

I don't have the stats on hellcats right now, but assuming that they're unintelligent, they'd make great pets for the mindflayers. Something that can both be stroked while the master plan is explained, and can also be sicked on an intruder.

hamishspence
2009-08-29, 09:14 AM
non-Advanced D&D (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortals) did have spellcasting dragons- at least, they had a percentage chance of being a spellcaster.

Leeham
2009-08-29, 09:55 AM
I've heard that mind flayers find undead abhorrent and contact with the mind of a powerful undead can be traumatic.

Which sort of makes sense, though it takes away from the ultra-badass mystique of illithids, especially with undead being so common in D&D.


I actually think that this is fantastic. Even the weakest mind flayers are what, CR8? They're pretty powerful. The fear of undead is a pretty cool weakness really, a bit like the whole elephant/mouse thing.