Are Mind Flayers just Vampires?

[Tvtyrant]

This oddly just occured to me, but aren't vampires and Mind Flayers almost identical?

1.Live in the dark.
2. Use mind control to capture victims, kill by biting.
3. Reproduce parastically with humans.
4. Eat a weird substance that has to come from people.
5. Mysterious but see as anathema to nature.
6. Magically powerful.
7. Live in small, back stabby societies of dusty opulence.
8. Same freaking costume even.

[redwizard007]

This oddly just occured to me, but aren't vampires and Mind Flayers almost identical?

1.Live in the dark.
2. Use mind control to capture victims, kill by biting.
3. Reproduce parastically with humans.
4. Eat a weird substance that has to come from people.
5. Mysterious but see as anathema to nature.
6. Magically powerful.
7. Live in small, back stabby societies of dusty opulence.
8. Same freaking costume even.

Yes, of course. Also, birds are bats, cricket is baseball, and videogames are a movie.

[Tvtyrant]

Yes, of course. Also, birds are bats, cricket is baseball, and videogames are a movie.

I would argue that they are more alike then those. Any campaign could switch obe for the other with no appreciable difference in tone or mechanics.

[Max_Killjoy]

A setting's vampires can conceivably be set up to feed without killing the victim.

Once you get to "crack open the skull", you've left that spot behind.

[redwizard007]

I would argue that they are more alike then those. Any campaign could switch obe for the other with no appreciable difference in tone or mechanics.

Truthfully, I suppose they do fill many of the same roles, but it is their differences that define them.

Mindflayers are supposed to be Other. Almost Lovecraftian. They should evoke no positive emotional responses.

Vampires on the other hand are, more obviously, a derivative of humanity. They may be corrupted, but are still easily identified with, often romanticized, and think in ways similar to human thought.

[LordEntrails]

Don't you mean to ask; "Are vampires just illithiad?"

[Tvtyrant]

Don't you mean to ask; "Are vampires just illithiad?"

People who got bit by a vampire illithiad maybe. Now that is a redundant creature.

[Scripten]

Truthfully, I suppose they do fill many of the same roles, but it is their differences that define them.

Mindflayers are supposed to be Other. Almost Lovecraftian. They should evoke no positive emotional responses.

Vampires on the other hand are, more obviously, a derivative of humanity. They may be corrupted, but are still easily identified with, often romanticized, and think in ways similar to human thought.

Very much this. A vampire's lost humanity and their descent into inhumanity is a key component of their identity. With Mind Flayers, it is their inherent lack of humanity and alien quality that gives them their identity.

[FreddyNoNose]

Yes, of course. Also, birds are bats, cricket is baseball, and videogames are a movie.

And today is tomorrow or at least is was yesterday.

This is fun!

[redwizard007]

What we really need to ask is, "Is Mindflayer just a meaningless term?"

[Max_Killjoy]

What we really need to ask is, "Is Mindflayer just a meaningless term?"

No.

No we do not.

[LibraryOgre]

I'd add that another key difference is that vampires can often hide their inhumanity... they may be mistaken for a slightly creepy nobleman, until the corpses start showing up, drained of blood.

[Tvtyrant]

What we really need to ask is, "Is Mindflayer just a meaningless term?"

Maybe meaningless is a mindflayer term?

[FreddyNoNose]

Maybe meaningless is a mindflayer term?

Depends on the mind they are flaying.

[KarlMarx]

I for one actually took advantage of this similarity in my campaign setting. Vampires once theorized that they could survive without humanoid blood by interaction with a vortex of magic. The ones who didn't get blasted to pieces were warped into mind flayers.

[Tvtyrant]

I for one actually took advantage of this similarity in my campaign setting. Vampires once theorized that they could survive without humanoid blood by interaction with a vortex of magic. The ones who didn't get blasted to pieces were warped into mind flayers.

I like that, very Douglass Adams.

[Jay R]

You have catalogued the similarities between vampires and mind flayers. With the same amount of effort, you could compile an equally convincing list of their differences.

There are books and books full of monsters, made up out of a fairly small number of options for mechanics. A fair amount of overlap is going to happen.

[Cespenar]

In addition to massive tone and genre differences summarized by the above posters, not even their inspirations are the same. Bram Stoker (among others) vs. Lovecraft? Come on.

With just a cursory glance at the Manual, one could come up with much more redundant pairings, in my opinion.

For example, do we really need every member of the classic list: kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, orcs, ogres, trolls...

Or ghosts, wraiths, and shadows?

Or ghouls, ghasts and wights?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

People who got bit by a vampire illithiad maybe. Now that is a redundant creature.

Ah mam, not brains with blood again! We had that yesterday!

[Cespenar]

Ah mam, not brains with blood again! We had that yesterday!

Come on, it's just brain salad and blood sausage today. Yesterday was brain curry and blood pudding!

*All actual dishes

[awa]

another aspect for vampires is turning your comrades and loved ones into monsters is a core part of what they are while its barely a thing for mind flayers.

[Lapak]

Definitely not. They don’t allow for a trial before extracting your brain. And they don’t do it to balance out, punish, or amend evil you may have done. They eat people for dominance, for survival, and for selfish reasons.

Even if you want to count them as vampires (that’s probably worth a thread all to itself) Tyr Even-Handed wouldn’t give these guys the time of day.

[Joe the Rat]

Similarity: Penchant for leather, latex and high-collar cloaks.
Difference: Illithid never sparkle.
Hybridization: Blade 2.


Vampires wear their inhumanity on the inside, Illithid on the outside. One is a decadent corruption, warning of temptation, the other a mollusk-themed bogeyman, warning of the unknown.

[Psyren]

What we really need to ask is, "Is Mindflayer just a meaningless term?"

Responding seriously for a second though...


Vampires are defined, in part, by their laundry list of weaknesses. It's true that both monsters hate sunlight, but that's basically where it ends - a lot of the other stuff (holy water, garlic, running water, holy symbol, turning) won't do squat against an Illithid except add flavor to your brain.

They also have different strengths. A lone Illithid is a threat of course, but not nearly as much of one as a lone vampire. Vampires can propagate themselves completely solo, and every time they do they gain lasting backup (the kind they can't lose to a lucky saving throw) to help further their ends. Left alone, a single vampire could potentially subvert an entire village or even country. Illithids meanwhile can procreate using their victims too, but it is a much more involved and lengthy process, and it requires them to already have an entire community nearby (tadpoles + elder brain) - by themselves, they just can't do much.

The biggest difference mechanically is that most Illithids are a known quantity. Their abilities are more or less defined, with the vast majority being noodly-armed (and noodly-faced) Telepaths. Vampire meanwhile is a template, and you can never be totally sure what you'll face ahead of time, especially since Vampires have all of eternity to reinvent themselves or pick up new pursuits. Some are casters, some are bruisers, some are sneaks, and their powers compliment all three approaches.

The last key difference is that Vampires are, well, sexy. Even before Twilight, that was a hugely integral part of the mythos. Not only can they blend into society, there is a pretty substantial minority of society that wants them to. That gives them a much bigger capacity to seed society with their plots and play the long game.

Now, I'm sure there are any number of deviants who view Illithids the same way - but for the most part, their only community is with each other and with those nearby races (like Drow enclaves) that they can't wholly subjugate - at least not yet. Their ability to effect political machinations is limited to dominating important people, and that isn't nearly as feasible long-term.

[Anonymouswizard]

In any game or setting with so many monsters there will tend to be overlap between types. Illithids do take some cues from vampires, but their role is being the face of the alien in D&D.

Unfortunately the Aboleth does this just as well, and is more alien.

Any D&D setting will have to chose what monsters it includes, and normally settings will go along with a theme that isn't 'anything and everything'. In general a setting that focuses on the alien will have mind flayers but won't have vampires, while a setting that focuses on corruption will have vampires but won't have mind flayers. Having two redundant creatures is not as massive a problem as it seems.

Now other games tend to have smaller 'core' bestiaries, and will add more monsters in per setting. Fantasy AGE has a relatively small set of monsters with little overlap. Savage Worlds has more overlap but in many cases setting bestiaries are replacements for the core bestiary. Lamentations of the Flame Princess doesn't have a 'standard' bestiary and recommends making all monsters specifically for the adventure.

[Mastikator]

This oddly just occured to me, but aren't vampires and Mind Flayers almost identical?

1.Live in the dark.
2. Use mind control to capture victims, kill by biting.
3. Reproduce parastically with humans.
4. Eat a weird substance that has to come from people.
5. Mysterious but see as anathema to nature.
6. Magically powerful.
7. Live in small, back stabby societies of dusty opulence.
8. Same freaking costume even.

Those are all surface level similarities.

1. Mindflayers live underground, vampires are nocturnal.
2. Mindflayers use innate psychic powers, vampires use innate charm magic and do NOT mind control.
3. Yes this is correct, they both reproduce and sustain parasitically on humans.
4. There's nothing weird about blood or brains.
5. One is not of this world the other is a perversion of this world, different kinds of unnatural.
6. Ok but so are dragons and they aren't even a little like vampires or mind flayers.
7. Vampires hide in plane sight among their victims. Mind flayers openly dominate their victims and treat them like actual cattle. VERY different.
8. Ok I'll give you that one. But there's only so many ways to dress like an edgy goth.

[Psyren]

2. Mindflayers use innate psychic powers, vampires use innate charm magic and do NOT mind control.

Actually no, it's definitely mind control - full on dominate, not just charm. They do have to command verbally as opposed to mentally though. (I agree with your other points)

[Mastikator]

Actually no, it's definitely mind control - full on dominate, not just charm. They do have to command verbally as opposed to mentally though. (I agree with your other points)

In D&D 3.5e it's an ocular domination, in 5e it's an ocular charm.

In popular media it's usually a temporary domination or love spell. It's never full on mind control that mind flayers have because they can also read minds with it, they can go over your memories. They are the Professor X "your mind is an open book and I get to write in it" and vampires are the "gaze into my eyes child and let me suck your blaaaad"

[Tvtyrant]

In D&D 3.5e it's an ocular domination, in 5e it's an ocular charm.

In popular media it's usually a temporary domination or love spell. It's never full on mind control that mind flayers have because they can also read minds with it, they can go over your memories. They are the Professor X "your mind is an open book and I get to write in it" and vampires are the "gaze into my eyes child and let me suck your blaaaad"

Except for the permanent thralls that show up in Dracula (aka Renfield). It is a mindcontrol strong enough it rewrites their personality permanently.

Underground Vampires actually make more sense then nocturnal ones if you think about it.

[Joe the Rat]

Nah. People don't live underground. Vampires work well on the surface, Illithid fare best in where Veins of the Earth is a setting feature. Hiding underground, yes - many versions of vampire lore have them return to their graves, or require their grave-dirt to be present where they rest. But hunting underground, not so much.

You're thinking of C.H.U.D.s.