5e Beholder Lore Theory

[Falcon X]

I have a theory. Please tell me how reasonable or off it sounds.

Theory: 5e Beholders are all Elder Orbs

The 5e beholder is really neat, but it seems to go against all previously established lore.
That is, if you assume all beholders are the same breed.

Back in the day, you had 4 major breeds of Beholders (as they are born)
A. Normal Beholders
B. Hive Mothers
C. Elder Orbs
D. Behilderkin/abominations

Normal Beholders and Hive mothers jive really well with all the other 3.5 and prior lore. They reproduce physically, are sometimes solitary and sometimes in groups, and all believe they are the true lineage of the Great Mother.

Elder Orbs are anomalies though. Because of their age, they are most likely to be deviant in actions and abilities (and subsequently probably align more with the other beholder god Gzemnid). There is also never an explanation given for why they are different. “Nobody knows” is always said.

Also, in 5e, there is no stated age range for Beholders. My guess is because they live a very long time, rather than the classic 120ish years of a normal beholder.

In prior editions it was always stated that “nobody knows why some Beholders are Elder orbs.”
I’m thinking it’s because there are actually two separate breeds, and in 5e we are learning about the Elder Orb breed.

Any thoughts?

Edit: Worth noting that in 2e, there was a very quick rumor of “Evil Eyes” which had different powers in their eyes than normal Beholders.
These are also a shoe-in for the 5e Beholder except that something major in the universe would have had to have shifted for them to become more common (Spellplague maybe? Or a chain of events started by Vecna at the end of 2e?)

[Millstone85]

I know very little of beholder ecology in previous editions, so here is a humble counterargument.

This wiki entry (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Elder_orb) claims that elder orbs are immortal. If so, that seems somewhat at odd with the 5e lore where a beholder dreams that "it exists beyond death" and wakes up as a death tyrant. Why would an immortal being even subconsciously desire a lich-like existence?

[Falcon X]

I know very little of beholder ecology in previous editions, so here is a humble counterargument.

This wiki entry (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Elder_orb) claims that elder orbs are immortal. If so, that seems somewhat at odd with the 5e lore where a beholder dreams that "it exists beyond death" and wakes up as a death tyrant. Why would an immortal being even subconsciously desire a lich-like existence?

Ah! Good catch!

Yeah, that doesn’t help my case. Still, I’ll try a flimsy reply:
In 2e, Elder orbs are just very long lived. Maybe the 3.5 scholars are just wrong on that fact.
After all, most information in most books is rumor and hearsay. Volo doesn’t know everything, and neither does Ronassic of Sigil (who wrote 2e’s “I, Tyrant”) or whoever wrote Lords of Madness in 3.5.

But in truth, I might choose my game’s in-world cannon to be that they are Evil Eyes (which the only thing we know about them is that hey aren’t locked into the default eye powers, but manifest many different types. This is from the book I, Tyrant), and something in the history between 2e and 5e made them the dominant form of beholder.

[JackPhoenix]

Or, maybe, separate editions have separate lore.

[Millstone85]

Or, maybe, separate editions have separate lore.That's probably the wiser stance. Like how there is now only one Kolyarut but multiple oinoloths. How did that happen? Well, it didn't, it was always this way.

Beside, I have a funnier life cycle (https://i.imgur.com/YUkQ41r.png) for beholders. They barf gibbering mouthers, which remain such until one of their liquified preys manages to silence all the other voices through extreme megalomania and paranoia. This is actually a failure in the development of a gibbering orb, but don't you ever say that to a beholder!

[Grey Watcher]

That's probably the wiser stance. Like how there is now only one Kolyarut but multiple oinoloths. How did that happen? Well, it didn't, it was always this way.

Beside, I have a funnier life cycle (https://i.imgur.com/YUkQ41r.png) for beholders. They barf gibbering mouthers, which remain such until one of their liquified preys manages to silence all the other voices through extreme megalomania and paranoia. This is actually a failure in the development of a gibbering orb, but don't you ever say that to a beholder!

So when a beholder expels a gibbering mouther, what's actually happening is all those suppressed voices are escaping?

[Finback]

I know very little of beholder ecology in previous editions, so here is a humble counterargument.

This wiki entry (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Elder_orb) claims that elder orbs are immortal. If so, that seems somewhat at odd with the 5e lore where a beholder dreams that "it exists beyond death" and wakes up as a death tyrant. Why would an immortal being even subconsciously desire a lich-like existence?

Is it a case of "functionally immortal unless something happens to it?" I mean, parties kill Elder Orbs, so they're not *immortal* - so if one had enough fear of being killed by an external agency, they could strive to maintain that existence through alternate means - eg lichdom.

[Grey Watcher]

Is it a case of "functionally immortal unless something happens to it?" I mean, parties kill Elder Orbs, so they're not *immortal* - so if one had enough fear of being killed by an external agency, they could strive to maintain that existence through alternate means - eg lichdom.

But lichen can also be killed. I mean, they have they have their restore disk phylactery, which helps, but they can still end up regular dead. And do death tyrants even get phylacteries? They don't go through the same lichdom ritual as mortals, so it's unclear if, despite the similarities, they're actually liches.

Sidenote: English really does need separate words for "not subject to death by old age" and "literally cannot die by any means."

[Falcon X]

Or, maybe, separate editions have separate lore.
Nah. I will always be a “All books are rumors and hearsay” type of DM. It gives me more freedom, and, to me, makes better world building, as you get multiple voices about how the world works.

However, yeah, 5e lore was probably never intended to be connected :(

[Millstone85]

So when a beholder expels a gibbering mouther, what's actually happening is all those suppressed voices are escaping?My idea was that the beholder's recently digested preys would sometimes be turned into a mouther. The beholder would keep such offsprings in its lair, but torture them so they can only develop into weaker beholder-kin.

Meanwhile, if a beholder stops feeling surrounded by enemies, the suppressed voices might resurface, work together against the beholder, and complete the transformation into a gibbering orb.


Is it a case of "functionally immortal unless something happens to it?" I mean, parties kill Elder Orbs, so they're not *immortal* - so if one had enough fear of being killed by an external agency, they could strive to maintain that existence through alternate means - eg lichdom.I always assume it means they stop aging at some point, because how often are "immortal" characters truly impossible to kill?


But lichen can also be killed. I mean, they have they have their restore disk phylactery, which helps, but they can still end up regular dead. And do death tyrants even get phylacteries? They don't go through the same lichdom ritual as mortals, so it's unclear if, despite the similarities, they're actually liches.To my knowledge, death tyrants do not have phylacteries, so the transformation would indeed be all the more pointless to an immortal beholder.


Sidenote: English really does need separate words for "not subject to death by old age" and "literally cannot die by any means."The words "ageless" and "invulnerable" come to mind, though I expect those to be discutable as well.

[mormon_soldier]

Immortal is the right word for 'cannot die' because mortal means subject to death. So immortal means 'not mortal' or not subject to death. Ageless is the better word for not subject to old age or death thereby.

[Grey Watcher]

Immortal is the right word for 'cannot die' because mortal means subject to death. So immortal means 'not mortal' or not subject to death. Ageless is the better word for not subject to old age or death thereby.

Sort of. Ageless to me also implies unchanging. And while eternal youth (or some kind of halting of physiological aging) is generally assumed, it also to me implies a certain inability to mature or change in a meaningful way.

Take, for example, D&D dragons: age is VERY important. They're neither ageless nor truly, cannot-ever-die immortal, but they just don't die of old age no matter what. (Especially if, like me, you're inclined to suppose that ancient isn't so much the end as "this is the most we're willing to stat.)

So "ageless" is another term that isn't quite what I'm thinking of. Like "immortal," there are plenty of situations where the distinction doesn't matter, but there are distinctions nonetheless, I guess.

[JackPhoenix]

Sort of. Ageless to me also implies unchanging. And while eternal youth (or some kind of halting of physiological aging) is generally assumed, it also to me implies a certain inability to mature or change in a meaningful way.

Take, for example, D&D dragons: age is VERY important. They're neither ageless nor truly, cannot-ever-die immortal, but they just don't die of old age no matter what. (Especially if, like me, you're inclined to suppose that ancient isn't so much the end as "this is the most we're willing to stat.)

So "ageless" is another term that isn't quite what I'm thinking of. Like "immortal," there are plenty of situations where the distinction doesn't matter, but there are distinctions nonetheless, I guess.

D&D dragons CAN die of old age. Attempts to prevent that is why dracoliches exist.

[Grey Watcher]

D&D dragons CAN die of old age. Attempts to prevent that is why dracoliches exist.

Huh. I stand corrected.

Admittedly, I always thought dragons became dracoliches because there was some measure of power to be gained or because the phylactery is an extra buffer against a fatal case of adventurer or something. And that's to say nothing of various benefits like never having to sleep (how many stories involve some puny human or halfling taking advantage of a dragon needing a power nap) or immunity to disease or any other negation of the frailties of the living. But I suppose if death by old age is a thing for dragons, then they'd become liches for the exact same reasons humans do.

[Chaosmancer]

Beside, I have a funnier life cycle (https://i.imgur.com/YUkQ41r.png) for beholders. They barf gibbering mouthers, which remain such until one of their liquified preys manages to silence all the other voices through extreme megalomania and paranoia. This is actually a failure in the development of a gibbering orb, but don't you ever say that to a beholder!

That's interesting. I might have to do some work with that. Beholders are one of the few Abominations I haven't done a lot of work with yet.




On the discussion of English.

Immortal has always seemed to be to refer to "cannot die through natural means". Old age and disease being the two big ones, but sometimes including things like starvation, poison ect.

Invulnerable or Invincible has often meant to me that they cannot be harmed, and therefore you cannot kill them through violence.


I stand by this by looking at mythology. Quite often you had gods or spirits that were immortal but were killed by a hero, destined to die, or maimed and injured in a conflict with other gods or monsters. They were not invincible, but they were immortal and may have even required special weapons or circumstances to be injured.

[JackPhoenix]

Huh. I stand corrected.

Admittedly, I always thought dragons became dracoliches because there was some measure of power to be gained or because the phylactery is an extra buffer against a fatal case of adventurer or something. And that's to say nothing of various benefits like never having to sleep (how many stories involve some puny human or halfling taking advantage of a dragon needing a power nap) or immunity to disease or any other negation of the frailties of the living. But I suppose if death by old age is a thing for dragons, then they'd become liches for the exact same reasons humans do.

IIRC, 3.5 had dragon lifespan at about 4500 years, so they may as well be immortal from a human's perspective.

[redwizard007]

D&D dragons CAN die of old age. Attempts to prevent that is why dracoliches exist.

First sentence is correct. Second sentence is false.

[JackPhoenix]

First sentence is correct. Second sentence is false.

Both are true. They are paraphrase of the first two sentences of the Dracolich's MM entry: "Even as long-lived as they are, all dragons must eventually die. This thought doesn't sit well with many dragons, some of which allow themselves to be transformed by necromantic energy and ancient rituals into powerful undead dracoliches."

[redwizard007]

Both are true. They are paraphrase of the first two sentences of the Dracolich's MM entry: "Even as long-lived as they are, all dragons must eventually die. This thought doesn't sit well with many dragons, some of which allow themselves to be transformed by necromantic energy and ancient rituals into powerful undead dracoliches."

Pelor's shiny ass! Is no lore sacred? Does the Cult of the Dragon no longer exist?

[JackPhoenix]

Pelor's shiny ass! Is no lore sacred? Does the Cult of the Dragon no longer exist?

Funny thing you blaspheme Pelor while mentioning FR organization. It does exist, in FR, but Monster Manual isn't FR sourcebook.

[Naanomi]

I wonder where that leaves the Great Mother in all that? She was always one of my favorite God/Demon Lord/Obyrith/Far Realm Aberrations

[Falcon X]

Pelor's shiny ass! Is no lore sacred? Does the Cult of the Dragon no longer exist?
Lol. And now you know why I take the stance that all sourcebooks are perspective writing. Monster Manual entries have a habit of making absolutist statements like this that it doesn't take a genius to know isn't absolute (I mean, just read the entries on the Cult of the Dragon in Hoard of the Dragon Queen to know that their lore is still intact). That means the book is fallible.

Thus, my original question is one of "possible truth," not "this is the way it definitely is."


I wonder where that leaves the Great Mother in all that? She was always one of my favorite God/Demon Lord/Obyrith/Far Realm Aberrations
She's REALLY cool, isn't she?

In my theory, she is indeed the mother of all normal beholders.
My theory is that the 5e Volo's Guide Beholders are NOT the same race of beholder as her children. They are either a mutation, or a second race entirely that fell out of the Far Realm.
Seeing as most Beholders tend to look at each other as a separate species, it's not a stretch that some of them actually ARE separate species.

[Millstone85]

I wonder where that leaves the Great Mother in all that?A 5e beholder might believe that the dream that created it was sent by the Great Mother, thus denying that it owes its existence to the imagination of a "clearly inferior" beholder.

Also, look at the way VGtM describes a beholder hive. It is a group of up to ten beholders that are smaller but otherwise identical to the beholder that dreamed them into existence, and which said original beholder regards as extensions of itself. I think their first meeting must go somewhat like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkmi_UTsjtE) :smallbiggrin:. Now, what if a beholder could similarly believe itself to be an extension of the Great Mother?


My theory is that the 5e Volo's Guide Beholders are NOT the same race of beholder as her children.What I just wrote could instead be applied to that Gzemnid you mentioned in the opening post.

[Envyus]

Pelor's shiny ass! Is no lore sacred? Does the Cult of the Dragon no longer exist?

Most Dragon's joined up with the Cult of the Dragon willingly to avoid death. (Though in recent times the cult has changed course cause they realized they were going off a mistranslation)