Just as you were doing this...I just posted a homebrew Illithid PC stat block over in the Homebrew forum.
Anyways, I'd love to hear from people who didn't take part in the other topic. More viewpoints are always useful be they for or against the idea of this race being playable.
It's bad enough people get to be Drow, let's not ruin the Illithids with a rash of 2 Soul Blade-wielding C/G Illithids who rebel against their race's evil society and wish to live amongst and be respected by normal people in the real world...
Playable Illithid Heroes...?
It's bad enough people get to be Drow, let's not ruin the Illithids with a rash of 2 Soul Blade-wielding C/G Illithids who rebel against their race's evil society and wish to live amongst and be respected by normal people in the real world...
And what's wrong with that? If 100 people want to make duel-wielding scimitar Drow or rebellious Ithillids I say let them, they're a harmless nusence :P
In all seriousness though, I say that having a few stereotypes and cliches running around is worth having an awesome race. I will always bless the Drizzt clones for letting me play my manipulative, backstabbing PC Drow ;)
I'll check that out as well.
Anyways, I'd love to hear from people who didn't take part in the other topic. More viewpoints are always useful be they for or against the idea of this race being playable.
As I mentioned before I don't know if it should be done (having commoners tell the difference between evil-illithids and good-illithids could be quite difficult. Although then again I don't think most towns should let gnolls walk around in the default setting so its mostly the same issue). But I do know if it was done, they'd be the most played race from PHB3 ;)
Playable Illithid Heroes...?
It's bad enough people get to be Drow, let's not ruin the Illithids with a rash of 2 Soul Blade-wielding C/G Illithids who rebel against their race's evil society and wish to live amongst and be respected by normal people in the real world...
Well (a) Illithids were available as PCs in 3.5e and it somehow didn't happen and (b) it can't happen in 4th ed because there's no such thing as chaotic-good ;)
uhm, what would they eat?
Well, assuming their fluff was changed on the PC write up (which it would have to be, no PC can operate as a hero when they have to eat brains) anything really. Though with the whole octopus head thing they've got going I'd say that they'd be really partial to fish... especially raw, squishy, brain like fish :P
Illithid PC Race
I don't genuinely believe they'll ever make Illithids playable, but I think it would have merit. Just like I think certain undead should be playable...or at least a new form of undead that is playable instead of a watered-down vampire or what have you. I tried coming up with such a "template" or at least something that could be easily fluffed to at least LOOK like any race...but size gave me too much trouble. There'd have to be such a generic undead race for each size of PC. I dunno...maybe if this Illithid thing pans out, I'll go pick up the undead race...make a small one too and see how it goes.
I understand a bit of the anti-Drizz't sentiment. But the thing is, in each game, it's unique. Maybe a lot of people play it, but in any given game world, there's really only a tiny handful of such individuals, if more than one. Playing against type is fun. Heck, the whole point of playing such a "good" illithid is that no one will know, and you'll have to very carefully and slowly earn the trust of your party, and through them, the trust of the town you just helped save. Imagine returning to a village you've saved many times, to be greeted openly and warmly by all, while those who've only recently relocated there or who are travellers through it will look on with disgust and disbelief at how openly friendly the veteran residents are with such a hideous monster. It would be harrowing to fight for that trust and respect...and deeply moving to have a whole village spring to the defense of your honor and name...despite your outward nature or that of your people.
THAT is why it's fun to play against type.
Well, assuming their fluff was changed on the PC write up (which it would have to be, no PC can operate as a hero when they have to eat brains) anything really. Though with the whole octopus head thing they've got going I'd say that they'd be really partial to fish... especially raw, squishy, brain like fish :P
I just went with animal brains on mine. It keeps the illithids sufficiently oogie while keeping them completely away from any moral quandries about their diet (except for those times when they're tempted to eat an enemy's brain).
I've always liked to think it's the protein inherent in neural tissue that sustains them, while it's the innate psychic energies of the brain that "taste" too good to resist normally. Which, would make certain kinds of fish one of the best alternatives if they're not getting much psychic "taste" anyway.
Now that I think of it...that would be something a scholarly or otherwise innovative Illithid PC might work diligently on...finding a way to properly and satisfactorily duplicate the "flavor" of a properly seasoned and potent mind...no matter what the Illithid actually ingests.
Well, assuming their fluff was changed on the PC write up (which it would have to be, no PC can operate as a hero when they have to eat brains) anything really. Though with the whole octopus head thing they've got going I'd say that they'd be really partial to fish... especially raw, squishy, brain like fish :P
There's also nothing wrong with animals brains. As a human being in real life I quite like sheep's brains.
I don't genuinely believe they'll ever make Illithids playable, but I think it would have merit. Just like I think certain undead should be playable...or at least a new form of undead that is playable instead of a watered-down vampire or what have you. I tried coming up with such a "template" or at least something that could be easily fluffed to at least LOOK like any race...but size gave me too much trouble. There'd have to be such a generic undead race for each size of PC. I dunno...maybe if this Illithid thing pans out, I'll go pick up the undead race...make a small one too and see how it goes.
I'm actually really hoping they make undead playable too. It's actually not that big a stretch, though they'd probably make an entire undead "race" that have been cursed/raised a millenia ago/etc. as opposed to allowing PC's to be ghoul Dragonborn and such. I'm hoping for an undead race in phb4, assuming shadow is in it. Seems the perfect race to fit the basic necrotic vibe people think shadow will have
I understand a bit of the anti-Drizz't sentiment. But the thing is, in each game, it's unique. Maybe a lot of people play it, but in any given game world, there's really only a tiny handful of such individuals, if more than one. Playing against type is fun. Heck, the whole point of playing such a "good" illithid is that no one will know, and you'll have to very carefully and slowly earn the trust of your party, and through them, the trust of the town you just helped save. Imagine returning to a village you've saved many times, to be greeted openly and warmly by all, while those who've only recently relocated there or who are travellers through it will look on with disgust and disbelief at how openly friendly the veteran residents are with such a hideous monster. It would be harrowing to fight for that trust and respect...and deeply moving to have a whole village spring to the defense of your honor and name...despite your outward nature or that of your people.
THAT is why it's fun to play against type.
Wow... almost makes me wish they didn't make good drow so common so they still got that kind of effect
. Well, can always a DM if I can play some other monstrous race, like Orcs for instance that would get a similar response... or a kobold, got to love those little guys :D Oh and also, the animal brains bit works too, just forgot about them when I posted...
Also unless they rewrite much of the illithid fluff from older editions I don't think they'd work out well as a player race. I'm not sure how 3.5 worded them (I stopped getting the books after a while for various reasons) but in older editions they lived up to a Far Realm race pretty well: evil, alien, and creepy. That's my concern with a pc race writeup they lose the alien, creepy aspect.
Illithid don't think or act like something we're used to. They are also supposedly connected to in physiological ways to their birthing pool and their 'community'. I don't see one ever being good or lawful good which is why I doubt the'd make it as a player race. They'd have to already be strong to survive escaping their 'siblings' to get to the surface to join the party. A level 1 illithid would be lucky to live long enough to even think about going against type before being devoured by the rest of its pod.
There seems to be 3 major threats for the PCs in 4e and the illithid is part of one of them: The Far Realm (the others being the Abyss/Demons and Elemental Chaos/Primordials, even Devils seem to be of a lesser threat now).
Now maybe a race like the tieflings who survived the illithids slavery and were altered because of it... oh wait that's the Githzerai and Githyanki. Sorry guys, as neat a concept as an illithid race writeup could be I don't think it'd get enough traction to happen.
I'd love to play a Mind Flayer.
I can imagine... a Mind Flayer, at a tavern, in the corner, with a newspaper and a cup of coffee. :coolcthul :whatsthis
or a kobold, got to love those little guys :D
I'm dying to play a kobold monk. Not because I've got a wonderful character concept or because I am particularly in love with monks. But because the only kobold mini I had recently was a kobold monk and I love that mini :P
Also unless they rewrite much of the illithid fluff from older editions I don't think they'd work out well as a player race. I'm not sure how 3.5 worded them (I stopped getting the books after a while for various reasons) but in older editions they lived up to a Far Realm race pretty well: evil, alien, and creepy. That's my concern with a pc race writeup they lose the alien, creepy aspect.
This is my one real concern with having Ithillids as a PC race. As awesome as it would be to play an Ithillid, allowing anyone to play them would make them far more common place, and it's only a stone throw from "common" to "boring"... hm, does anyone know if the minotaur and gnoll became less pronounced and threatening as monsters once they got the Dragon treatment?
Illithid don't think or act like something we're used to. They are also supposedly connected to in physiological ways to their birthing pool and their 'community'. I don't see one ever being good or lawful good which is why I doubt the'd make it as a player race. They'd have to already be strong to survive escaping their 'siblings' to get to the surface to join the party. A level 1 illithid would be lucky to live long enough to even think about going against type before being devoured by the rest of its pod.
There's not really much fluff regarding Mind Flayers in 4th, but if Drow can escape from their extremely theocratical, chaotic, evil society it's not too much of a stretch to say Ithillids could... though it would be hard to escape from a leader that could literally pick apart your thoughts as you have them.
Now maybe a race like the tieflings who survived the illithids slavery and were altered because of it... oh wait that's the Githzerai and Githyanki. Sorry guys, as neat a concept as an illithid race writeup could be I don't think it'd get enough traction to happen.
Mutated thralls are still a viable option in my book: just because Githyank and Githzerai used to be Mind Flayer slaved doesn't make them the be all and end all of them. Though I admit they are incredibley cool ;)
I'm dying to play a kobold monk. Not because I've got a wonderful character concept or because I am particularly in love with monks. But because the only kobold mini I had recently was a kobold monk and I love that mini :P
I personally took notice of kobolds after watching Unforgotten Realms... "Kobooooold"
does anyone know if the minotaur and gnoll became less pronounced and threatening as monsters once they got the Dragon treatment?
I have no idea. I do know that minotaurs in my games were going to be an accepted race rather then a monster race. With them coming up in the PHB3 I actually feel like its safe to have them as bad guys because they'll be looked at in the same light as my human or dwarven bad-guys rather then seeing a bad minotaur and going "oh these are just typical minotaurs. They're all evil."
One of the notions behind my Illithid race is that they would've been strong and independent enough to become elder brains themselves, and only mistakenly survived. Even Illithids are far from perfect. They hid their nature and managed to escape. It's necessary to remember that just because something has PC stats, it doesn't mean there are a lot of them...or even more than one. Any given game might have only one such Illithid...with all NPC Illithids remaining villains and often perhaps hunting the PC if they discover him.
On another note...they're not inscrutably alien...they're simply described as such. What they do and why they do it is, and always has been, the same as any other race. "Alien" is just a word used in narrative to make it sound spiffy. Sometimes I think the Far Realm has been the recipient of the incorrect and misinformed notions surrounding the old Chaotic/Neutral alignment. It's become little more than an excuse to randomly do completely off-the-wall (and often simply stupid) things for absolutely no good (to say nothing of logical) reason. Honestly, I blame the common concept of the far realm. It's basically described as a realm where 2 + 2 equals "purple" when 2 is actually "dark", addition is actually "up", and purple is actually "hot". It's just an excuse for meaningless nonsense, and nothing more. The fact that Lovecraft is so often a source of inspiration and "validation" for it simply annoys me all the more, considering he was as talented a writer as the average squirrel. Great...just the mere thought of that hack has put me in a sour mood...
Anyway, like I said, it's a foregone conclusion that they'll never make a PC Illithid...probably not even in Dragon. That has nothing to do with anything except the fact that not enough people would use it. But, mechanically they're just as viable as anything else when it comes to homebrewing. Indeed, I decided to look at the two attempts listed in the Races Compendium and one was actually moderately close to what I put up. Almost makes me feel a bit like a copy-cat, honestly. But, I still prefer mine thusfar.
Now I'm going to go back to revising my undead race.
One of the notions behind my Illithid race is that they would've been strong and independent enough to become elder brains themselves, and only mistakenly survived. Even Illithids are far from perfect. They hid their nature and managed to escape. It's necessary to remember that just because something has PC stats, it doesn't mean there are a lot of them...or even more than one. Any given game might have only one such Illithid...with all NPC Illithids remaining villains and often perhaps hunting the PC if they discover him.
If it's a PC race, there's more than one, though admittabley there is precedent for rare PC races. Deva for instance are far from common.
On another note...they're not inscrutably alien...they're simply described as such. What they do and why they do it is, and always has been, the same as any other race. "Alien" is just a word used in narrative to make it sound spiffy. Sometimes I think the Far Realm has been the recipient of the incorrect and misinformed notions surrounding the old Chaotic/Neutral alignment. It's become little more than an excuse to randomly do completely off-the-wall (and often simply stupid) things for absolutely no good (to say nothing of logical) reason. Honestly, I blame the common concept of the far realm. It's basically described as a realm where 2 + 2 equals "purple" when 2 is actually "dark", addition is actually "up", and purple is actually "hot". It's just an excuse for meaningless nonsense, and nothing more. The fact that Lovecraft is so often a source of inspiration and "validation" for it simply annoys me all the more, considering he was as talented a writer as the average squirrel. Great...just the mere thought of that hack has put me in a sour mood...
I'm not familiar with Lovecroft's work, first hand at least... but if a text has such a lasting impression, it's usually either good or visionary. This is the guy who invented Cthulu, one of the most hyped and used gods/entities/villains etc. in roleplaying, videogames and numerous other things. The entire concept of Elder Gods has become a sort of mythos in itself, being given almost as much credential as "real" gods of the past like that of the Greek pantheon. I'd hardly call the person who did all that a hack. That said, you're entitled to your opinion, I just feel that somebody who made such a mark on the world would have to be above average at least
Oh, and I actually kind of like the whole "the Far Realm would make your brain explode if you saw it because it's so alien" thing, but that's probably just me.
If it's a PC race, there's more than one, though admittabley there is precedent for rare PC races. Deva for instance are far from common.
As long as they're rare enough that only the PCs will ever run into them even once, let alone more than once, that's plenty enough to keep things interesting, I think.
I'm not familiar with Lovecroft's work, first hand at least... but if a text has such a lasting impression, it's usually either good or visionary. This is the guy who invented Cthulu, one of the most hyped and used gods/entities/villains etc. in roleplaying, videogames and numerous other things. The entire concept of Elder Gods has become a sort of mythos in itself, being given almost as much credential as "real" gods of the past like that of the Greek pantheon. I'd hardly call the person who did all that a hack. That said, you're entitled to your opinion, I just feel that somebody who made such a mark on the world would have to be above average at least
Not to name names...but a certain someone was elected to office TWICE...IN A ROW...by a (admittedly slim) majority of the voting public. The larger the group, the less I care what they say, think, believe, or do. As K said, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals." I've only read one of his books, and it was so long ago I barely remember it. I only remember that it was by him, and not his semi-cult of copy-cat writers.
Honestly, if people like his work...that's fine, but much as it might be an inspiration for certain concepts (even I've thought of the whole space-born squid notion now and then for various reasons), I don't think it's a legitimate justification for maintaining certain fluff in an unrelated game when that fluff interferes with new and interesting ideas for the players of that game.
Oh, and I actually kind of like the whole "the Far Realm would make your brain explode if you saw it because it's so alien" thing, but that's probably just me.
I don't mind it either...but when coming up with ideas themselves, there is no inscrutable alien understanding. It's completely within our bounds to understand, because there isn't actually an unknowable alien realm. When narrating a story, and maybe even with regards to certain tactics or things it's ok to throw a little apparent weirdness in to liven things up. But during the creative process they should be approached from the same perspective as any race, especially since they now live in the normal world, and only fluffed as needed to maintain their weirdness afterward.
-
Now, all that said...it's only my opinion. I disagree with a lot of views, but that doesn't make mine right.
To those who keep bringing up how it is pointless to want a PC Illithid...
Additionally...once again...I do not expect a published PC Illithid...EVER. That is why I made one...that, and to show that it could be done effectively. WotC has no reason to make an Illithid. There is no wishful thinking, there is no hopeless desire. I know it won't happen...so I did it myself.
Not really gunning to be a jerk...but I already knew there'd never be a PC Illithid...just thought it'd have been interesting. I don't need to be told repeatedly something I already know.
Illithid don't think or act like something we're used to. They are also supposedly connected to in physiological ways to their birthing pool and their 'community'. I don't see one ever being good or lawful good which is why I doubt the'd make it as a player race. They'd have to already be strong to survive escaping their 'siblings' to get to the surface to join the party. A level 1 illithid would be lucky to live long enough to even think about going against type before being devoured by the rest of its pod.
There are outcasts though in Illithid society. For instance, in 2nd ed Illithids that took up arcane studies instead of psionic studies would be killed, thus they often would escape their enclave before that would happen. Same in regards to Illithids that had a strong remnant of their host thrall's previous personality.
Basically, there are certainly potential examples for outcast Illithids. It's even quite possible that there could be rogue Illithid groups out there composed specifically of outcast Illithids. Who knows what sorts of alignments those groups would be.
Bel
How about a playable Beholder race?
Bel
Ah, see that doesn't really fit the same mold. For example, Illithids are bipedal humanoids. They can equip all the same equipment as other humanoids. Beholders? Not so much.
Additionally, there IS fluff to support outcast Illithids and 3rd edition did sport a playable Illithid which further helps this effort.
Now if you have objections to the race I'd love to hear your reasoning. But snide comments really aren't helpful to either side.
But snide comments really aren't helpful to either side.
On the other hand, they're a welcome reprieve from the otherwise BS contents of this thread. I'm still reeling from the claim that Lovecraft is a hack followed by a comparison to George W Bush. My hate is palpable.
Let's try to keep this on the subject of playable Illithids and not on Lovecraft's proficiency as a writer.
I am not entirely opposed to this idea, but I don't exactly support it either.
I am not opposed to the general idea of playing Illithid characters (even good and heroic ones). What I would be concerned with, however, is watering the race down and taking everything cool out of it in order to make balanced.
In my mind Illithids are one of the monsters that are cool because they are scary. Like dragons and vampires, my players know that mind flayers are bad news and can mess them up real good. As DM, I love the looks on their face and the squirming when I pull out a mind-flayer miniature and set it beside my laptop or when I bring Lords of Madness to the table (the 3.5 book of aberrations - its a great fluff filled book useful in any edition).
My problem is, in order to make Illithids a balanced race with humans, elves, and dwarfs you have to reduce their power to that of a human, elf, or dwarf! Just like dragons are cool because they are giant, powerful, and deadly. If you reduced to them to a PC race with all the powers of a mere human, they would be dragons in name only.
Now, I am not saying all is lost for an Illithid PC race. I still think their are several options, here are just a few.
1.) Create a "sub-Illithid" race, sorry if that sounds crude. But basically create a weaker species that contains some of the coolness of an Illithid without all of the power. This way, you could have a neat near-Illithid PC without degrading the main race.
2.) Create some kind of hybrid race class. This method is less conventional but based on the idea that, for most PCs, their race is only a small portion of their character's overall power. To compensate for the Illithids greater personal power make an "Illithid Class" that goes with the Illithid race. So the mind flayers great power comes from both the race and class together.
Except that it's kinda hard to be an exception if it means you can't eat at all. The only example I've ever seen of such a thing is Yuusuke's ancestral father in YuYu Hakushou, and even there, he was drastically weakened and dying from the fact he hadn't eaten anything in the last, what, 300 years? And he did die. That's not the kind of role you want to push the players into playing. It wouldn't fly as a PC race.
The monster manual says brains, it doesn't say sentient brains. It's previous edition fluff that states sentient brains. It'd be a very minor change to make it simply brains and not sentient brains.
Has their been some official word on playable Illithids I have missed?
No, just pushing for playable Illithids is all
This thread was made specifically because another topic was taken rather off topic due to discussion of this.
I am not opposed to the general idea of playing Illithid characters (even good and heroic ones). What I would be concerned with, however, is watering the race down and taking everything cool out of it in order to make balanced.
My problem is, in order to make Illithids a balanced race with humans, elves, and dwarfs you have to reduce their power to that of a human, elf, or dwarf! Just like dragons are cool because they are giant, powerful, and deadly. If you reduced to them to a PC race with all the powers of a mere human, they would be dragons in name only.
There are a number of ways it can be dealt with actually. For instance, Mind Blast could well be their racial ability. Of course it would be a weakened version. However paragon/epic feats or perhaps racial paragon paths would amp it up. After all, you would start as a level 1 Illithid and you generally don't fight level 1 Illithids in-game. Really there are a number of ways you can bring Illithids down to the status of other playable races, ways that wouldn't require major changes.
1.) Create a "sub-Illithid" race, sorry if that sounds crude. But basically create a weaker species that contains some of the coolness of an Illithid without all of the power. This way, you could have a neat near-Illithid PC without degrading the main race.
One bit that some people have mentioned in the previous thread would be the switch from sentient brains over to non-sentient brains as being a perfectly viable explanation for why their Mind Blast would be weakened. No need for a sub-Illithid race when you can put in some minor fluff to accomplish the same thing for the regular Illithid race.
In any case, the MM1 clearly says that they eat brains of "intelligent creatures," the vast majority of which being RACES, and the rest being highly intelligent monsters whom are so rare that it is ridiculous to think that the race of Illithids could propagate on such a small food source. Illithids eat the sentient races' brains. That's clearly canon. Yes, you can refluff it so they don't. But WotC aren't going to. You can go about making your homebrew, but it is 99% certain that there will not be even a Playing Illithids article.
I have nothing against Mind Flayers, nor do I care to get people angry at me for whatever reason. It's just that Illithids belong as antediluvian horrors, and when you take that Lovecraftian element away, you don't have Illithids anymore. If you want, I can quote the MM1 entry's lore section for you if you need further proof that the lore contradicts Good Illithids.
I've also read the other thread, and I disagree with the weakening of Mind Blast and the move from sentience to non-sentience. There's no 4e lore pertaining to where they get their Mind Blast, nor is there any lore that they can survive on non-sentient brains.
Please don't freak out on me for debating, I truly mean no offence.
In any case, the MM1 clearly says that they eat brains of "intelligent creatures," the vast majority of which being RACES, and the rest being highly intelligent monsters whom are so rare that it is ridiculous to think that the race of Illithids could propagate on such a small food source. Illithids eat the sentient races' brains. That's clearly canon. Yes, you can refluff it so they don't. But WotC aren't going to. You can go about making your homebrew, but it is 99% certain that there will not be even a Playing Illithids article.
I thought the MM stated brains, not intelligent brains. Either way though it's still a small re-fluffing. Wizards HAS made small changes to fluff even in 4th ed already.
I have nothing against Mind Flayers, nor do I care to get people angry at me for whatever reason. It's just that Illithids belong as antediluvian horrors, and when you take that Lovecraftian element away, you don't have Illithids anymore. If you want, I can quote the MM1 entry's lore section for you if you need further proof that the lore contradicts Good Illithids.
There is fluff dating back to 2nd ed which supports the idea of outcast Illithids. There also was a playable Illithid in 3rd edition. Then there is also the "Adversary", a thrall host who's personality survives and ends up dominating the Illithid instead of the other way around. Basically, the idea of a playable Illithid is certainly not impossible, there does exist multiple examples that could be used to support a playable Illithid. It's certainly not as impossible as you are making it out to be.
I've also read the other thread, and I disagree with the weakening of Mind Blast and the move from sentience to non-sentience. There's no 4e lore pertaining to where they get their Mind Blast, nor is there any lore that they can survive on non-sentient brains.
There being no lore isn't much of an excuse, it's easy enough for Wizards to make lore. For instance, in regards to Mind Blast, you never fight a level 1 Illithid in the game. Look in the MM, no level 1 Illithids. Who knows how weak a level 1 Illithids Mind Blast would be? It's not a huge leap to give a weak Mind Blast as the racial power and then give the ability to improve it via feats and such.
Additionally, there may not be any lore that states that they can survive on non-sentient brains, but again there isn't really any lore (at least in 4th edition) that states that they cannot survive without sentient brains. Now, I know in 2nd edition it was strictly said that they need to consume 1 sentient brain per month to begin to starve, however that was a previous edition, things often get refluffed through editions.
Please don't freak out on me for debating, I truly mean no offence.
I was getting upset with you in the previous thread because you clearly weren't reading my response (or if you were you were just not paying any attention at all to them). I made a comment about the minor refluffing that would be needed to make them only need brains, not necessarily sentient brains and yet your response acted as though I had said that they could refluff it so that they don't need to eat brains at all. I then quoted myself and you responded again by once again seemingly ignoring what I had said about non-sentient brains.
Really, ignoring posts I've made when you are responding to me is just about my biggest pet peeve on forums. I don't get annoyed by much, that that'll do it to me every time.
I thought the MM stated brains, not intelligent brains. Either way though it's still a small re-fluffing. Wizards HAS made small changes to fluff even in 4th ed already.
To be fair, though there has been a lot of refluffing from previous editions to 4th edition, there hasn't really been much 4th edition retconning... although they did change razor-claw shifters from rats to cats. I look at that as more two oddly similarily named offshoots though ;) The rest of your points seem fairly solid though.
Also, @LuciferNietzsche... well I don't want to bog down the thread, but comparing Lovecroft to George Bush is... wow
To be fair, though there has been a lot of refluffing from previous editions to 4th edition, there hasn't really been much 4th edition retconning... although they did change razor-claw shifters from rats to cats. I look at that as more two oddly similarily named offshoots though ;) The rest of your points seem fairly solid though.
Also, @LuciferNietzsche... well I don't want to bog down the thread, but comparing Lovecroft to George Bush is... wow
See, though that's just what I mean. Changing the razor-claw shifters from rats to cats is just about as minor of a change as dropping the word intelligent from the Illithids requirement of eating intelligent brains to just brains.
up, but, if you're going to kill them anyway, I don't see an issue with it. If it is all right for a Lawful Good character to kill a bunch of goblins, it should be okay for a Lawful Good Illithid to eat their brains during or after doing so.And, does it ever say how long they can go without eating a brain? Or that they have to eat living brains?
There was no intent to compare Lovecraft to Bush though...only an intent to point out that, the fact that something that has always been done a certain way, or because a large number of people agree and support it...has nothing at all whatsoever to do with whether or not it's ACTUALLY a good thing or idea, aside from pure coincidence.
But, none of that's for this thread, I just wanted to clarify.
-
I originally thought it would be necessary to eliminate Mind Blast as being too powerful. But, I managed to make it fit reasonably. Good illithids can't eat sentient brains, or they wouldn't be good. So...if they subsist on sentient brains, it should be easy enough to refluff it to a need for more frequent non-sentient brains. There could be all sorts of fluff-consequences, and even going so far as to say that the reason PC Illithids aren't EXACTLY like NPC Illithids is due to their change of diet and circumstances related to their outcast status. Sometimes the runts survive against all odds...so it's likely also true of those tadpoles with sufficient potential that would normally be devoured by the Elder Brain.
At the same time, there's no reason it couldn't be houseruled for the groups that choose to break the creature's canon nature. (I'd never accept "doesn't eat sentient brains" in my campaign world, but such a clause might be necessary for most that choose to run player illithids)
2.) Create some kind of hybrid race class. This method is less conventional but based on the idea that, for most PCs, their race is only a small portion of their character's overall power. To compensate for the Illithids greater personal power make an "Illithid Class" that goes with the Illithid race. So the mind flayers great power comes from both the race and class together.
Feats, maybe? Watered down Illithid, racial feats to gain back some of those abilities. Combined with a racial paragon path, you could start with something rather innocent, and "grow" into the full-fledged race as you progress in the campaign. (you could then argue that you start as a young illithid, without all your abilities, and even pick/choose which ones you do/don't get with the feats and paragon path)
Fair enough to say that one Lovecraft book isn't enough to justify my opinions to others...but it was still one book too much for my personal tastes. I have to admit my own bias though, that horror of any type generally bores me to tears. That said, I have read The Hobbit and all three LotR books (before the movies), and I really have no better an opinion of Tolkien than Lovecraft.
There was no intent to compare Lovecraft to Bush though...only an intent to point out that, the fact that something that has always been done a certain way, or because a large number of people agree and support it...has nothing at all whatsoever to do with whether or not it's ACTUALLY a good thing or idea, aside from pure coincidence.
That's fair enough, sorry if I jumped the gun a little bit
. I'm not too fond of Lord of the Rings either, but I still say Tolkein was a literary genius for laying down the frame work for a plethora of future, better fantasy novels, roleplaying games, video games, movies etc., but you're entitled to have your own opinion on a writers work.Couldn't Illithid PCs just eat enemy brains? Sure, it's kinda
And, does it ever say how long they can go without eating a brain? Or that they have to eat living brains?
It doesn't say how long they can survive without eating a brain, but it DOES say that the brain has to be intelligent and living, though this could be changed in the future. As for brain eating not being evil... well that's a whole 'nother can of worms, but I'm of the opinion that mutalating your enemies corpse and devouring them isn't exactly a good act, regardless of whether they're an evil warlock or a harmless peasant.
Short side-note: I don't consider "illithids" a monster that fall under the category of "should be an option for players". There are some things that just belong in the Monster Manual, not in the Player's Handbook. It helps to have clear-cut separations between the players and the "big uglies" out there.
At the same time, there's no reason it couldn't be houseruled for the groups that choose to break the creature's canon nature. (I'd never accept "doesn't eat sentient brains" in my campaign world, but such a clause might be necessary for most that choose to run player illithids)
I'd say 3rd edition opened the door when they included a playable Illithid in Savage Species.
There's also the fact that we're getting Gith. Now, Wizards could go the route of just giving us Githzerai, however I'm willing to bet that we are going to be able to choose between making a Githzerai and a Githyanki and the Githyanki are rather insanely terrible beings. Now, if we can get Githyanki, why not properly balanced Illithids?
But it still rakes my heart to see them labeled as hacks. They practically invented their respective genres; Tolkien from a need to give his fake languages a rich history, and Lovecraft from a need to explore his own paranoia and disturbed New Englander aristocratic ethnocentrism.
I will say this: Lovecraft's earliest works aren't very good reads, but anything written after he started writing about the Dreamlands are wonderful expositions into imagination and sanity.
I'd say 3rd edition opened the door when they included a playable Illithid in Savage Species.
To be fair 3rd edition opened the door on a LOT of things being playable in it's run, but I doubt even a quarter will really be considered appropriate for 4th. Ithillids could be one of them, but it's not too likely.
There's also the fact that we're getting Gith. Now, Wizards could go the route of just giving us Githzerai, however I'm willing to bet that we are going to be able to choose between making a Githzerai and a Githyanki and the Githyanki are rather insanely terrible beings. Now, if we can get Githyanki, why not properly balanced Illithids?
I'd say the Githyanki are quite a few pegs down from Ithillids on the evil, insane, and horror fronts, and actually have a lot of typical charecteristics that aren't evil in nature (militant, materialistic etc.) Ithillids are bit more... super villainesque, and haven't really developed many traits beyond being evil squid people, aside from purely villainous ones such as being grand manipulators.
it DOES say that the brain has to be intelligent and living
Citation needed from a 4th ed book. We've already seen tieflings changed from half-demons to descendants of humans who made a pact with devils. And subsist does not mean "must absolutely eat." I subsist on sausages and chips. It doesn't mean I must eat and only eat them.
I get some people don't like idea of Illithid PCs. But AFAIK no lore exists for 4th edition that forces illithids to only eat sentient brains. Constantly saying there is or pointing to old lore isn't going to change the fact 4th ed doesn't have any lore for it. People are welcome to incorporate as much 3.5e and 2nd edition lore as they want. But doing so doesn't make it canon for the PoL 4th ed "setting".
I'd say the Githyanki are quite a few pegs down from Ithillids on the evil, insane, and horror fronts, and actually have a lot of typical charecteristics that aren't evil in nature (militant, materialistic etc.) Ithillids are bit more... super villainesque, and haven't really developed many traits beyond being evil squid people, aside from purely villainous ones such as being grand manipulators.
I'm going to have to disagree. The Illithids made the Githyanki just as terrible as themselves. Sure they don't have the squid face going on, but they are just as nasty of a race. They're ruled by a bloody Lich after all (and you don't get more evil than a Lich, which by the way if you would recall Arch Lich is a player Epic Destiny). They never want to be enslaved ever again, their solution? Attack anybody who might try to enslave them, which is basically any sentient race. So sure, they don't have slaves, they just kill everybody, yes that's MUCH better than the Illithids :p
Mind Flayer Lore
A character knows the following information with a successful Dungeoneering check.
DC 20: Mind flayers (or illithids, as they call themselves) bend others to their will and wield powers that shatter the minds of their foes. Mind flayers subsist on the devoured brains of intelligent creatures. They are coldly self-serving and think nothing of sacrificing companions or thralls to save themselves.
DC 25: Mind flayers communicate via telepathy, although they also understand [Deep]* Speech. A mind flayer's thralls are completely loyal and obedient. They obey the illithid's telepathic commands in a dark, hopeless dreamlike state, following the spirit of their instructions and not just the letter.
DC 30: Mind flayers are often solitary masterminds who manipulate hosts of weak-willed thralls to do their bidding, but sometimes they gather in small cabals of like-minded individuals. Horrible cities and kingdoms of mind flayers, organized around mighty disembodied intellects known as elder brains, lurk in the deepest portions of the Underdark.
DC 35: A mind flayer begins life as a small, tentacled, tadpolelike parasite that invades the skull of a helpless humanoid victim, devours its brain, and then subverts the body to its own use. Within a matter of days, it transforms the body it steals into an adult illithid, and all traces of the creature's former being are permanently extinguished.
*The book says "Dark Speech," which is a clear typo considering that in the stat box it says they know Deep Speech. This is not unlike the typo which makes the aberrants in the Draconomicon 1 know "Far Speech" rather than Deep Speech.
I'm not going to argue for or against anymore, because frankly I'm getting sick of it. But since you wanted to see the quotes, I gave you it. Looks to me pretty irredeemable, though; and the third box kind of nips the host-rebelling stories of the past in the bud. There's a big difference between changing the lore of Razorclaw Shifters as Rats in 3.5e to Cats in 4e and between changing what it says in the 4e MM1 to something contradictory in a PH or Dragon magazine years later, but still in 4e. A lot of things changed over the edition shift. That doesn't justify things changing within the edition itself.
Then again, Ravaasta lore in the Manual of the Planes says that they're related to Rakshasas, and that both are descendants of the demons know as Arcanoloths, while Deva lore says that Rakshasas are Devas turned evil, so there's at least one case of lore contradicting itself. I think that's more so, though, that we don't know what the origin of Rakshasas are, and in the Ravaasta lore section, the Rakshasas deny that they are descendants of Arcanaloths and relatives to the dishonourable Ravaastas. I'd like to see more on this whole Angel-Deva-Rakshasa-Ravaasta-Arcanaloth complex (and Immortals can become Demons - look at Grazz't), but that's neither here nor there. In any case, this proves that lore can be a bit more complicated than when first released.
Still, it would take a lot for you to make an Illithid PC race that I could actually justify including. In any case, I'm going to sit back now and watch you all discuss, because when tension rises like this and it starts becoming jabs at individuals rather than discussions about topics, it becomes a major turn-off to me. If you can get me interested in it again, maybe I post again in this thread. Otherwise, I'll just watch to see what you all come up with.
EDIT: Some liches aren't evil. Look at the Baelnorn for example. Archlich is not supposed to be an evil Epic Destiny.
Mind flayers subsist on the devoured brains of intelligent creatures.
I've already addressed this point.
But since you wanted to see the quotes, I gave you it.
I actually asked for the quote that says they must eat sentient brains.
Looks to me pretty irredeemable, though
I agree. Although I also consider Drow and Gnolls to be pretty irredeemable in the "setting" MM1 fluff is written for.
I'm going to have to disagree. The Illithids made the Githyanki just as terrible as themselves. Sure they don't have the squid face going on, but they are just as nasty of a race. They're ruled by a bloody Lich after all (and you don't get more evil than a Lich, which by the way if you would recall Arch Lich is a player Epic Destiny). They never want to be enslaved ever again, their solution? Attack anybody who might try to enslave them, which is basically any sentient race. So sure, they don't have slaves, they just kill everybody, yes that's MUCH better than the Illithids :p
I agree, it is much better than the Ithillids, if only because of the tragic, tragic irony involved... that's quality writing right there. In any case, I just find it far more likely for a Githyanki to wake up and realises "what the hell am I doing? I value freedom above all else and I'm doing THIS?? And living in a society ruled with an iron fist by a super evil lich??? Screw this, I'm leaving!" than it is for a being pretty much evil by definition to do so. But I admit I may be biased, I'm a big Githyanki fan :P
I actually asked for the quote that says they must eat sentient brains.
And you got it.
And subsist does not mean "must absolutely eat." I subsist on sausages and chips. It doesn't mean I must eat and only eat them.
It really depends on the context. "I subsist on sausages and chips" is a much different context to a nature documentary presenter describing that fleas subsist on the blood of larger animals. And lore is a lot more like the latter context than the former. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that vampires strictly HAVE to drink blood, they don't even technically need the sustenance since their undead. But a non-blood drinking vampire would be just... wrong.
And you got it.
I got something you interpret as saying X, rather then something that outright states X.
Also, it doesn't say anywhere that vampires strictly HAVE to drink blood, they don't even technically need the sustenance since their undead. But a non-blood drinking vampire would be just... wrong.
Someone has already raised the point that non-blood drinking vampires has been covered quite thoroughly in fiction without being "just... wrong." Also how often do vampires have to drink blood? Once an hour? Once a day? Once a week? Once a century? Could a PC vampire exist for an entire campaign without having to drink blood as they seek to undo this terrible curse that afflicts them?
4th ed Vampires already undo much of the typical vampire lore, even those thyings held sacrosanct in 3.5e. They have no problems with holy symbols, garlic, stakes, running water or entering homes uninvited. A vampire lord can walk around fairly happily in direct sunlight as well. Also based on this quote from Dragon #364
Kahlir themselves became monsters whose only sustenance came from blood
I'd say quite a persuasive case could be made for vampires being driven or compelled to drink blood due to their evil nature, rather then being forced to drink blood or else shrivel up and die. After all if all vampires had to drink blood as their only sustenance, there wouldn't be a need to call out Kahlir vampires specifically.
Almost like how gnolls eat intelligent creatures because they're evil, not because they have to.
I'd say WotC has left these fluff aspects open to DMs to determine as they desire.
I got something you interpret as saying X, rather then something that outright states X.
That's a fair point, it seems heavily implied to me, but since I'm arguing for that point I'm probably reading more into it than is actually there.
Someone has already raised the point that non-blood drinking vampires has been covered quite thoroughly in fiction without being "just... wrong." Also how often do vampires have to drink blood? Once an hour? Once a day? Once a week? Once a century? Could a PC vampire exist for an entire campaign without having to drink blood as they seek to undo this terrible curse that afflicts them?
Also a fair point, but if I recall those non-blood drinking vampires, even if they didn't need it to survive, still needed the blood to fuel their super natural abilites, were weakened by it etc. Also, has there been examples of non-brain eating Ithillids in fiction?
4th ed Vampires already undo much of the typical vampire lore, even those thyings held sacrosanct in 3.5e. They have no problems with holy symbols, garlic, stakes, running water or entering homes uninvited. A vampire lord can walk around fairly happily in direct sunlight as well. Also based on this quote from Dragon #364Kahlir themselves became monsters whose only sustenance came from blood
I'd say quite a persuasive case could be made for vampires being driven or compelled to drink blood due to their evil nature, rather then being forced to drink blood or else shrivel up and die. After all if all vampires had to drink blood as their only sustenance, there wouldn't be a need to call out Kahlir vampires specifically.
I'm not too familiar with the context of that quote, but is it at all possible that it was just a superflous description? "Blood thirsty vampire" doesn't necessarily mean this vampire is more blood thirsty than other vampires, but adding "blood thirsty" to the front adds some dramatic description.
That said you're right, 4th edition has done away with a lot of vampiric fluff and percieved weaknesses, but vampire literally means "drinker of blood" (or something along those lines). Downplaying this factor of them makes them less... iconic, I suppose the word would be. Just another Joe Undead, imo of course.
I'd say WotC has left these fluff aspects open to DMs to determine as they desire.
Very true, but races and monsters are built on the basis of fluff. Though they can be refluffed easily, a monster/race without any base fluff is bare mechanics. This might be an extreme example, but I can't see people liking their monsters manuals to be stat blocks labelled "Monster 1A" through to "Monster 9Z". At the very least, a basic idea of what the monster is, according to WotC, supposed to act, look like etc can be a good basis to go off of for DM's.
Also a fair point, but if I recall those non-blood drinking vampires, even if they didn't need it to survive, still needed the blood to fuel their super natural abilites, were weakened by it etc.
Definitely true. I think that was the actual inspiration for lessening Illithids powers if they don't eat sentient brains (have to ask Lucifer though).
Also, has there been examples of non-brain eating Ithillids in fiction?
Fair point. Although I'm having trouble finding any information on non-D&D illithids.
but is it at all possible that it was just a superflous description?
I'm having trouble seeing how. It isn't describing them. It's stating a fact. The only sustenance Kahlir have is from blood. Its not saying "The blood-drinking kahlir were a bane on ancient Bael Turath" its saying "The Kahlir themselves became monsters whose only sustenance came from blood." Although absence of proof doesn't disprove something. I believe the absence means the fluff is something that has been left up to the DM to decide.
Downplaying this factor of them makes them less... iconic, I suppose the word would be. Just another Joe Undead, imo of course.
I don't think having vampires drink blood for fun rather then sustenance affects their iconic status. Although I also initially thought vampire lords should die immediately when exposed to sunlight. I've made peace with them being able to walk around during the day. So I'm also somewhat flexible.
Very true, but races and monsters are built on the basis of fluff. Though they can be refluffed easily, a monster/race without any base fluff is bare mechanics. This might be an extreme example, but I can't see people liking their monsters manuals to be stat blocks labelled "Monster 1A" through to "Monster 9Z". At the very least, a basic idea of what the monster is, according to WotC, supposed to act, look like etc can be a good basis to go off of for DM's.
Agreed. But I like what WotC has done with the monster manual. They give us just enough (IMO) to get our minds working and to create the rest of the fluff for ourselves.
As such I think its equally viable to say the following comments:
a) The psionic abilities of illithids possess come from eating the minds of sentient beings. Without sentient brains as part of their regular diet, the illithid's powers lose their potency.
b) If sentient brains aren't part of an illithids regular diet, it dies.
They're contradictory, but I think the MM1 makes either of them equally viable.
As for vampires, I'm surprised WotC doesn't say something along the lines of "vampires must drink 5-litres of blood each week or else they lose a quarter of their hit points on a weekly basis until they either do drink that amount of blood or die." I'm surprised because they go into great detail about how vampires are affected by their coffins which I've never thought was a particularly important part of vampire lore. Although whether or not vampires must drink blood is neither here nor there. Its only useful in that it shows WotC willing to leave what some might consider obvious and a rudimentary aspect of a monster to be fluffed out at the DM's discretion.
Definitely true. I think that was the actual inspiration for lessening Illithids powers if they don't eat sentient brains (have to ask Lucifer though).
Fair point. Although I'm having trouble finding any information on non-D&D illithids.
It was probably a little unfair of me to ask for lore on a much less mainstream monster than the vampire. And that is a fair point.
I'm having trouble seeing how. It isn't describing them. It's stating a fact. The only sustenance Kahlir have is from blood. Its not saying "The blood-drinking kahlir were a bane on ancient Bael Turath" its saying "The Kahlir themselves became monsters whose only sustenance came from blood." Although absence of proof doesn't disprove something. I believe the absence means the fluff is something that has been left up to the DM to decide.
I really have no idea what the Kahlir are, but I agree that the absence of fluff doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I don't think having vampires drink blood for fun rather then sustenance affects their iconic status. Although I also initially thought vampire lords should die immediately when exposed to sunlight. I've made peace with them being able to walk around during the day. So I'm also somewhat flexible.
It does kind of make the tortured, doesn't want to drink human blood but has no choice vampire a non-viable option... but fluff is mutable, so it doesn't really matter either way I suppose. I'd say allowing vampires to survive in the sun isn't to big a stretch... especially considering 4th editions "no save or die" effects, apparently that goes for monsters too :P
Agreed. But I like what WotC has done with the monster manual. They give us just enough (IMO) to get our minds working and to create the rest of the fluff for ourselves.
As such I think its equally viable to say the following comments:
a) The psionic abilities of illithids possess come from eating the minds of sentient beings. Without sentient brains as part of their regular diet, the illithid's powers lose their potency.
b) If sentient brains aren't part of an illithids regular diet, it dies.
They're contradictory, but I think the MM1 makes either of them equally viable.
I like the fluff direction too honestly. I'll admit I kind of miss the days where every monster had a bucket load of fluff and history that was rivoting to read through (I could read the 3e Monster Manual cover to cover and not even look at a stat block), but the new crunch heavy direction is easier on DM's and more economic as you're getting more bang for your buck, so to speak.
I'll admit that there's two interpretations of the fluff, and that their equally valid. I still prefer the second one, and think it's more heavily implied, but I'll agree to disagree on our chosen interpretations
As for vampires, I'm surprised WotC doesn't say something along the lines of "vampires must drink 5-litres of blood each week or else they lose a quarter of their hit points on a weekly basis until they either do drink that amount of blood or die." I'm surprised because they go into great detail about how vampires are affected by their coffins which I've never thought was a particularly important part of vampire lore. Although whether or not vampires must drink blood is neither here nor there. Its only useful in that it shows WotC willing to leave what some might consider obvious and a rudimentary aspect of a monster to be fluffed out at the DM's discretion.
I think it's because while adventurers are going to be sneaking into a vampires lair and will probably encounter it's coffin, they won't really care how often or why the vampire feeds. It's the same logic that makes monsters ritualless, even those that could probably cast them. And it's a good approach: if it's not on-screen, let the DM make it up ;)
As for vampires, I'm surprised WotC doesn't say something along the lines of "vampires must drink 5-litres of blood each week or else they lose a quarter of their hit points on a weekly basis until they either do drink that amount of blood or die." I'm surprised because they go into great detail about how vampires are affected by their coffins which I've never thought was a particularly important part of vampire lore. Although whether or not vampires must drink blood is neither here nor there. Its only useful in that it shows WotC willing to leave what some might consider obvious and a rudimentary aspect of a monster to be fluffed out at the DM's discretion.
As I recall, there is actually a few paragraphs in Open Grave regarding vampires and blood drinking. I don't recall all of the details(and my copy is in a storage unit right now so I can't check). What I do recall is that it is believed, but not proven, that vampires do not require blood to continue surviving. Instead vampires have somewhat of an addiction to blood. If they don't drnk blood then they will suffer withdrawl symptoms, and there are no known vampires to ever get over these. I believe that there was also a mention of vampires who don't drink blood for centuries(by getting sealed in a catacomb or something like that) tend to become feral.
I'm sure there was more in Open Grave, but I certainly can't recall it atm.
Diet Dependent: Some sages who study the nature of undeath, the Shadowfell, and necromantic energies of animation claim that, in truth, no undead is actually diet dependent. Instead, the few undead described in stories who seem to lapse into torpor if they are not supplied with life force might actually merely be severely addicted to their food source. So addicted, in fact, that when denied the sustenance they crave, they weaken, or at least appear to do so. However, no matter how enervated such creatures seem to become by lack of feeding, they cannot be “starved to destruction.” This fact is taken by the sages described earlier as proof that no undead is, indeed, actually diet dependent. And it’s quite true: A fresh infusion of its preferred food apparently always brings the creature back to full strength, or so the stories all relate.
Honestly...I find that particular "tortured existence" more appealing, as the temptation is equally powerful, but there's no arbitrary and purposeless complete shafting of a player for choosing "the high road". Such choices should never carry mechanical punishments for playing against type.
-
I don't have much to say about illithids at the moment though...haven't checked my own thread yet.
Basically, in traditional D&D settings, Mind Flayers would have a tough time being heroes. The combination of their nature and the facts that people know about them would make it hard to do. However, their is hope. Simply look to the stars.
In Spelljammer, Mind Flayers are different game entirely. For, at Lucky Luigi's, located just off the Docks on the Rock of Bral, they serve Oortling brains. Yum. Oortlings are like Cows to Mind Flayers, bred to be food. They have no sense of self preservation and exist to be breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the hunger Illithid looking to scare away potential clients. I'm sure that you could easily expand Oortlings to be available in Sigil as well, cause heck what isn't available there?
I love the idea of playing a Mind Flayer. Walk into to meet a client, he gets all scared you say, "Don't worry, I just ate." It would be fun to play a race that's perceptions of other living beings is vastly different than our own. I just don't think its viable in all settings.
The vast difference in level range between a L1 PC and the lowest members of the race would be a tad odd, but no worse than the drow.
I mean, it's a dungeoneering check to know anything about them, and the DC for even the basics is 20. Common, non-statted, "use and dump" NPC extras and fillers (basically every resident in all communities aside from possibly the few "interesting" story-hook or plot-advancing ones) are not gonna pull that off...ever (unless the DM wants to be a prick, or a gimmie). In places cosmopolitan enough for Illithids to be common knowledge, people will have their prejudices, but Illithids are still likely to be able to go about their business with little hassle provided they don't indulge their less-savory habits.
As for eating animal brains...how is that ANY different than vampires drinking animal blood? While in 4e, vampires don't require blood, they're just addicted to it...in cinema and books outside D&D (don't even bring up twilight, I hate that), when vampires DO require blood to exist, in some stories they can still survive strictly on animal blood...and the protagonist often chooses to do so. So, while it's pretty obvious that Illithids are meant to eat either mostly or only brains as a requirement...perhaps their taste for sentient brains specifically is no different than in other stories a vampiric preference for human blood. Animal brains will do the trick, but they just aren't as tasty...or whatever. The race as a whole, just like vampires, will eat sentient brains...but the 1 or 2 outcasts that are PCs will eat animal brains. How is that silly?
I don't personally think any race should ever be always the bad guy or always the good guy. But, I don't really hold with too many absolutes, especially not in fantasy. The real world is for absolutes...fantasy is for reality PLUS the things that can never ever really happen...with necessary abstractions for entertainment purposes, of course.
Illithids are grotesquely ugly, and would scare common people.
Just to comment on this part of your post specifically. I don't doubt that Illithids would scare the hell out of the common people. However look at Minotaurs, they are a playable race. Now, go to google images and look up Minotaurs and also look up Illithids. They look just about equally monsterous to me. One is a icky squid man, the other is an angry scary bull man.
So really, if Minotaurs are playable I cannot think the fact that Illithids aren't exactly the most pretty race as being a viable reason to not include them.
Of course you weren't saying playable Illithids shouldn't happen, but you did say something that could lead to what I wanted to point out, thus why I quoted you if you're curious
Illithids are grotesquely ugly, and would scare common people. But, common villagers have never heard of one, let alone seen one, and have no idea they eat brains or dominate minds. But...they do look hideous, and that counts for a lot. But, nobody except former adventurers, scholarly types, and full-on magic schools and such...will have any idea that illithids exist, let alone anything about them. If you walk into a village or even a large town and ask if anyone's seen a mind-flayer, they'll look at you blankly...and probably get very scared because "mind-flayer" does sound REALLY bad...but they'll likely have no idea at all what you're talking about.
I have to disagree on that one, NPC's are a lot more knowledgeble than you give them credit for...
PC: I heard you have a quest for me?
NPC: Yes, recently our sheep have been attacked by a... cat like... tentacled... blurry... thing... and we need you to go out and kill it.
PC: Cat like tentacled blurry thing?
NPC: I failed my Nature check
PC: Wait, if you couldn't even identify it, how did you beat it's Stealth check to snatch the sheep unnoticed with your Perception?
NPC: ...
I mean, it's a dungeoneering check to know anything about them, and the DC for even the basics is 20. Common, non-statted, "use and dump" NPC extras and fillers (basically every resident in all communities aside from possibly the few "interesting" story-hook or plot-advancing ones) are not gonna pull that off...ever (unless the DM wants to be a prick, or a gimmie). In places cosmopolitan enough for Illithids to be common knowledge, people will have their prejudices, but Illithids are still likely to be able to go about their business with little hassle provided they don't indulge their less-savory habits.
In a world like the PoL setting, I think most NPC's will try and learn as much about the thousands of things that might kill them as possible... and saying that any DM that lets an NPC auto-succeed on check is a prick isn't a very nice assertion. 4th Edition actually encourages NPC's to just auto-succeed or auto-fail.
As for eating animal brains...how is that ANY different than vampires drinking animal blood? While in 4e, vampires don't require blood, they're just addicted to it...in cinema and books outside D&D (don't even bring up twilight, I hate that), when vampires DO require blood to exist, in some stories they can still survive strictly on animal blood...and the protagonist often chooses to do so. So, while it's pretty obvious that Illithids are meant to eat either mostly or only brains as a requirement...perhaps their taste for sentient brains specifically is no different than in other stories a vampiric preference for human blood. Animal brains will do the trick, but they just aren't as tasty...or whatever. The race as a whole, just like vampires, will eat sentient brains...but the 1 or 2 outcasts that are PCs will eat animal brains. How is that silly?
I'm still of the mind that Ithillids need to eat intelligent brains and intelligent brains alone to survive, but that's still a fair point.
I don't personally think any race should ever be always the bad guy or always the good guy. But, I don't really hold with too many absolutes, especially not in fantasy. The real world is for absolutes...fantasy is for reality PLUS the things that can never ever really happen...with necessary abstractions for entertainment purposes, of course.
Some people like that sort of thing though... I'm sort of on the fence myself. I like my BBEGs to be humans and the like, usually anyway, but I also like the fact that whenever Trogladytes are uncovered sneaking through the city, the PC's don't have to wonder whether they have legitimate business or not and can just respond on the assertion that they're up to no good.
Just to comment on this part of your post specifically. I don't doubt that Illithids would scare the hell out of the common people. However look at Minotaurs, they are a playable race. Now, go to google images and look up Minotaurs and also look up Illithids. They look just about equally monsterous to me. One is a icky squid man, the other is an angry scary bull man.
I'm of the opinion that squids are creepier than bulls (and lizards for that matter, looking at you Dragonborn) but that's still a fair point. I suppose there might have been enough good minotaurs running around that people got used to them despite their appearance... it'd be much harder to pull a Drizzt when you have a tentacle beard imo :coolcthul
It's almost a certainty that there will never be a PC illithid race, not even in Dragon. The reason they won't is...well, I have no idea. I can't think of a good reason.
Balance isn't a good reason not to do it, becuse it's not that hard to balance an Illithid PC race and still keep the feel. My homebrew's not great, but it's more than good enough to prove that it could be done. It's a fact that they could be balanced and still fun and still Illithids.
"Because Illithids have always been bad-guys" is an absolutely terrible reason...but that's pure opinion on my part. I never think it's a good idea at all to do anything simply because it's always been that way, or because it's popular. The same is true of all fluff considerations from previous editions.
But again...and one last time before I'm out...WotC will not publish a PC Illithid, ever. But anyone can make homebrew ones...just like anything, and there's NO reason ever to NOT make homebrew...unless it would make the game unfun, which is entirely up to that specific group, NOT the gaming community, AT ALL.
Have fun.
I have to disagree on that one, NPC's are a lot more knowledgeble than you give them credit for...
PC: I heard you have a quest for me?
NPC: Yes, recently our sheep have been attacked by a... cat like... tentacled... blurry... thing... and we need you to go out and kill it.
PC: Cat like tentacled blurry thing?
NPC: I failed my Nature check
PC: Wait, if you couldn't even identify it, how did you beat it's Stealth check to snatch the sheep unnoticed with your Perception?
NPC: ...
In a world like the PoL setting, I think most NPC's will try and learn as much about the thousands of things that might kill them as possible... and saying that any DM that lets an NPC auto-succeed on check is a prick isn't a very nice assertion. 4th Edition actually encourages NPC's to just auto-succeed or auto-fail.
I'm of the opinion that squids are creepier than bulls (and lizards for that matter, looking at you Dragonborn) but that's still a fair point. I suppose there might have been enough good minotaurs running around that people got used to them despite their appearance... it'd be much harder to pull a Drizzt when you have a tentacle beard imo :coolcthul
There's also the fact that the lore checks are meant to gain USEFUL information on a creature. Nowhere does it say if you fail a check that you have no clue what the name of the creature is that you're fighting. I'd think even if a villager had never seen a dragon they could identify one should they see it. They might not know much about it but what they really need: its a dragon and it's powerful and deadly. Same goes for illithid and others.
The whole 'nobody on the surface knows about drow' is beyond fallacy in FR at least where it seems every villager knows of drow even if they don't know much about them. That line of thought is the same that makes me hate most slasher/horror films, "Huh what, do you not own a tv and can't read, you've never even heard of zombies or vampires or axe-wielding maniacs before?"
Sure maybe the characters don't know much, or even accurate info, but surely they've heard something. Most of the monsters we have in D&D are based on oral traditions, children's 'boogeyman' stories, and literature. These are from small villages like in D&D of what people thought was out in the woods skulking around. Now in D&D where those things are real you can be sure if one lives within 100 miles of the village the people in the village will at least have a name for it and have an idea if it's supposed to be bad, evil, dangerous (whether maliciously so or not), or friendly.
Villagers not knowing what an aboleth is I can see, that's something strictly Underdark that never comes to the surface. Drow and illithid make surface appearances so would be known, at least vaguely.
As for appearances I agree that an illithid would be much more frightening than a dragonborn, minotaur, or tiefling. Especially considering that at least tieflings and dragonborn have been assumed to have been mixing in villages for a long time and are well known. Minotaurs seem to be heading that way though individual villages may vary in reactions. Remember that 4e PoL is pushing for a more mixed-race kingdoms and villages than previous editions. Heck even dwarves live primarily on or near the surface now not in Moria.
I also like the fact that whenever Trogladytes are uncovered sneaking through the city, the PC's don't have to wonder whether they have legitimate business or not and can just respond on the assertion that they're up to no good.
That's definitely a matter of personal taste. I recently played a game where my character (genasi wizard) was told to clear our some troglodytes so some humans could set up a mine where the troglodytes lived. My genasi was appalled at this and basically called the human a racist and refused to do it.
So different strokes for different folks.
Same goes for illithid and others.
See I don't know about that. Some have said in a PoL setting all NPCs will do their best to educate themselves on the monstrosities that exist in the world. I just don't think they would.
I think NPCs would have very good knowledge (at least from the perspective of their race) on the local threats and terrible famous big gigantic monsters. The monsters that would qualify as famous monsters would of course be dependent on the setting. I think in general the list would comprise of drow, giants, dragons, demons and devils. But I don't think illithids would make the list. I don't beholders would even make the list and i think beholders are a much more serious threat then illithids.
As such I think your gnoll PC is going to have a much harder time in your average backwater towns then your illithid.
I tend to think of the "default PoL world" as somewhat similar to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time setting, except with even less communication between regions. Your average person in the southern towns know what trollocs are and would be able to recognise them on sight. They also know about ogiers, but they wouldn't be able to recognise them on sight. If they saw one, they'd think it a trolloc at best. If you showed them a draghkar they wouldn't know what they're looking at.
I think D&D PoL is a lot like that. Your average person knows what giants, dragons and drow are and could recognise them. But you show them a minotaur and they're going to think its an orc or a gnoll or something. You show them a picture of an illithid, and they won't know what they're looking at.
But that's just my opinion of course. The lore in the books is nowhere near detailed enough to be able to say very much for certain about the "default" 4th ed "setting". At best you can say WotC has left it vague enough for DMs to determine. ;)
That's definitely a matter of personal taste. I recently played a game where my character (genasi wizard) was told to clear our some troglodytes so some humans could set up a mine where the troglodytes lived. My genasi was appalled at this and basically called the human a racist and refused to do it.
That's fair enough, I just chose troglodytes as a random example, but this could really be applied to anything. It is a matter of taste really. I like a few good goblins and such on occassion to, but I also like having an enemy the PC's can recognize on sight... great for "pulling aside the curtain to reveal it was all an evil (insert monster here) plot" moments
I think D&D PoL is a lot like that. Your average person knows what giants, dragons and drow are and could recognise them. But you show them a minotaur and they're going to think its an orc or a gnoll or something. You show them a picture of an illithid, and they won't know what they're looking at.
Very true, but I also think that, in a setting as dangerous as PoL, the average NPC is going to react to the unknown as if it was as dangerous and evil as the most deadly creature he knows of. When you're surrounded on all sounds by monster infested wilderness, you tend to err on the side of caution.
Very true, but I also think that, in a setting as dangerous as PoL, the average NPC is going to react to the unknown as if it was as dangerous and evil as the most deadly creature he knows of. When you're surrounded on all sounds by monster infested wilderness, you tend to err on the side of caution.
Realistically I agree. But then we encounter the problem of any race that tends to live in a remote area by itself (goliaths, MM1 minotaurs, MM1 Githzerai) being reacted to harshly by NPC villagers. From a playability standpoint, almost getting thrown in jail/almost getting killed isn't going to be fun after the 5th time.
So either we make these remote races not so remote (boo!). Or we make villagers not so hostile towards the unknown (although drow and gnolls are still SoL).
Realistically I agree. But then we encounter the problem of any race that tends to live in a remote area by itself (goliaths, MM1 minotaurs, MM1 Githzerai) being reacted to harshly by NPC villagers. From a playability standpoint, almost getting thrown in jail/almost getting killed isn't going to be fun after the 5th time.
So either we make these remote races not so remote (boo!). Or we make villagers not so hostile towards the unknown (although drow and gnolls are still SoL).
Hm, that's a fair point. Suppose once you get used to Dragonborn and the like you should be used to pretty much anything humanoid walking around town... as long as they don't start burning it, of course ;) Though that's a general hazzard with adventurers in general :P
Playable Illithid Heroes...?
It's bad enough people get to be Drow, let's not ruin the Illithids with a rash of 2 Soul Blade-wielding C/G Illithids who rebel against their race's evil society and wish to live amongst and be respected by normal people in the real world...
And my response to anyone who wants to run an Illithid at my table (outside of some specially themed monster/evil game) will be the same as I give the would-be Drow player....
Sure, you can play that.
/ 
Of course this is met by smirking from my other players who know full well what's in store for the poor newb....
Guess what? You want to play a brain-eating, repulsive looking, monster? I'll make sure the NPCs treat you as such (they aren't likely to ever find out that you were a good monster).
BTW, "Hunt-the-____" is a great way to bring the rest of the party together. I was wondering how I was going to get the ball rolling this time, Thanks!
And once the other PCs have finished off the Illithid, then the player can bring in a replacement character. Next session.
Of course I don't give the fool this disclaimer up front. It's always best to let some lessons be learned the hard way....
And my response to anyone who wants to run an Illithid at my table (outside of some specially themed monster/evil game) will be the same as I give the would-be Drow player....
Sure, you can play that.
Of course this is met by smirking from my other players who know full well what's in store for the poor newb....
Guess what? You want to play a brain-eating, repulsive looking, monster? I'll make sure the NPCs treat you as such (they aren't likely to ever find out that you were a good monster).
BTW, "Hunt-the-____" is a great way to bring the rest of the party together. I was wondering how I was going to get the ball rolling this time, Thanks!
And once the other PCs have finished off the Illithid, then the player can bring in a replacement character. Next session.
Of course I don't give the fool this disclaimer up front. It's always best to let some lessons be learned the hard way....
Wow, your a terrible DM. Yeah, lets be a dick to the player instead of doing the smart and friendly thing instead of just saying no and explaining why, or god forbid allowing it and doing something interesting with the character.
Why does an illithid PC have to be a good guy?
Having come from a traditon of morally ambiguous and downright evil parties, I have a big problem with the whole "we have to be good cuz we're the heroes" crap. Illithids would make a great playable race. They're not that realistic as good guys, but an evil illithid PC would be awesome. I'd play one.
Wow, your a terrible DM. Yeah, lets be a dick to the player instead of doing the smart and friendly thing instead of just saying no and explaining why, or god forbid allowing it and doing something interesting with the character.
Agreed. 100% agreed. Doing what CCS desribed is just a great way to drive people out of the hobby. If monstrous characters aren't your thing, and you don't want them in your parties, just say so.
If a DM did that to me, I would never go back; assuming that he and his players are just dicks that wanted to kill the new guy cuz they don't agree with my character choice or cuz they wanted to haze the new guy. Either way, the DM and players would never be worth my time to even say hello to again. Life is hard enough without people pulling that crap on you when you're trying to relax and have fun.
And my response to anyone who wants to run an Illithid at my table (outside of some specially themed monster/evil game) will be the same as I give the would-be Drow player....
Sure, you can play that.
Of course this is met by smirking from my other players who know full well what's in store for the poor newb....
Guess what? You want to play a brain-eating, repulsive looking, monster? I'll make sure the NPCs treat you as such (they aren't likely to ever find out that you were a good monster).
BTW, "Hunt-the-____" is a great way to bring the rest of the party together. I was wondering how I was going to get the ball rolling this time, Thanks!
And once the other PCs have finished off the Illithid, then the player can bring in a replacement character. Next session.
Of course I don't give the fool this disclaimer up front. It's always best to let some lessons be learned the hard way....
Wow, you're an insanely terrible DM.
Anyways, I'm really not seeing anything against Illithids aside from the whole "They're a monster" argument, which really isn't much of an argument considering some of the playable races already in or will be in soon.
On the other side of the coin though, there is certainly a lot of RP potential in the race and it is perfectly capable of being balanced with the other playable races.
I see a lot of talk about "pulling a Drizzt" in regards to playing an illithid. I think there is one fatal flaw in that thinking:
Why does an illithid PC have to be a good guy?
Having come from a traditon of morally ambiguous and downright evil parties, I have a big problem with the whole "we have to be good cuz we're the heroes" crap. Illithids would make a great playable race. They're not that realistic as good guys, but an evil illithid PC would be awesome. I'd play one.
In 4th edition, PC's are heavily encouraged to be good. Though an Ithillid PC could be evil (and I don't mind evil campaigns/PC's to be honest) they wouldn't make it a racial write up unless they could be used equally as well in a good capacity.
Also yeah, that would be a bit of a jerk move... I have nothing against predjudice against PC's, if they have a heads up and it's manageable, but geez
That said, I have to point out that we know exactly what it means that illithids subsist on brains of sentient creatures. In Merriam-Webster the one definition of subsist that isn't about formal logic or existence reads:
"2: to have or acquire the necessities of life (as food and clothing) ; especially : to nourish oneself "
"To nourish oneself" is not an alternative to "acquiring the necessities of life." It's a specific instance, included in this particular definition, preceding definition 3.
The Oxford English Dictionary is similar: "1 maintain or support oneself, especially at a minimal level."
With appropriate refluffing, the illithid can be anything, but it remains disingenuous to claim that subsist leaves wiggle-room: illithids require a diet of sentient brains in order to live.
However, given just how many sentients most parties kill, a good, unaligned, or evil illithid adventurer is at no risk of starving to death. ;)
All the more reason why Illithids aren't such a crazy idea.
Oh look, there's a Playing Revenants article next month.
All the more reason why Illithids aren't such a crazy idea.
Of course, we don't know just how much influence the name and past D&D lore has had on the 4e Revenant Race. And even if they do retain most of the details, there's a difference between someone who came back from the grave to complete a quest they failed at or to seek justice for their death and an emotionless creature who considers all other lifeforms literally cattle and seeks to allow the Far Realm to consume all of reality.
Every player is free to work with his DM to accomplish any character concept that they can agree on.
That said, I have to point out that we know exactly what it means that illithids subsist on brains of sentient creatures. In Merriam-Webster the one definition of subsist that isn't about formal logic or existence reads:
"2: to have or acquire the necessities of life (as food and clothing) ; especially : to nourish oneself "
"To nourish oneself" is not an alternative to "acquiring the necessities of life." It's a specific instance, included in this particular definition, preceding definition 3.
The Oxford English Dictionary is similar: "1 maintain or support oneself, especially at a minimal level."
With appropriate refluffing, the illithid can be anything, but it remains disingenuous to claim that subsist leaves wiggle-room: illithids require a diet of sentient brains in order to live.
However, given just how many sentients most parties kill, a good, unaligned, or evil illithid adventurer is at no risk of starving to death. ;)
I highly doubt they're using the word as defined by the dictionary...which isn't a problem considering how many made-up words and made-up definitions of existing words are in the game. Problem is...using the real definition of subsistance and requiring they eat sentient brains means they absolutely cannot ever be a published PC race (which they're not likely to be anyway, admittedly). Personally, I prefer though that my homebrew concoctions meet the standards of published races. So, no more sentient brain-eating. Eating the brains of your foes is still an evil act, no matter how evil the devoured foe might be. Eating sentients in any way is an evil act.
PCs don't "HAVE" to be good, per se...but overall, the race must have a reasonable option of being good. An Illithid that MUST eat sentient brains to even survive can never be more than unaligned, at best. The forces of good would never accept someone who has to devour the brains of free-willed beings (even if those devoured are bad-guys) on their "team". Eating animal brains might gross out some people, but it's no more morally questionable than eating animals in the first place. Bleh...I hate morals...such a completely useless pain in the hindquarters.
Honestly, even if they "must" eat sentient brains...there's room enough that they could eat a larger number of animal brains and neural tissues in place of sentient brains, perhaps. It's not as nutritious, so they have to eat more of them. I think that's a reasonable comprimise...considering their dietary needs should rarely be a part of the game anyway, since no one else's usually is.
Of course, we don't know just how much influence the name and past D&D lore has had on the 4e Revenant Race. And even if they do retain most of the details, there's a difference between someone who came back from the grave to complete a quest they failed at or to seek justice for their death and an emotionless creature who considers all other lifeforms literally cattle and seeks to allow the Far Realm to consume all of reality.
Who says all Illithids view the other races in that light? Additionally Illithids are not emotionless. There's also lore that involve Illithids trading with other sentient races. Also the Illithids do not seek to allow the Far Realm to consume all of reality, they just want their empire back and it isn't like EVERY Illithid must share that desire. Really, I could say much of the same things you are but using Drow instead and yet it would still fit for the majority of their race.
Also, my point regarding the Revenants is rather simple. One con that people seem to have is the monsterous appearance of the Illithid. Well Revenants? They pretty much look like zombies. You don't get more terrifying to the local population than that.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that, undead or not, Revenants were people, they have drives and ambitions that mortals can understand, even if they can't comprehend the intensity that drives them. An Illithid, on the other hand, is an aberration; even if they don't desire to reshape the world in the image of their home plane, they are still alien and otherworldly. Considering them abominably cruel and malevolent is actually wrong- they're so alien that this is merely the best way humans can interpret their actions. They're a race of miniature, weakling, Great Old Ones- that's their fundamental theme.
Revenant appearance actually varies from source to source. Sometimes, beyond a scar hinting at how they died, they can't actually be distinguished from a living person unless one gets up close and observes the subtle details, like a lack of breathing or sweat. In fact, I think that's the norm in fantasy works; extremely decayed or obviously wounded Revenants tend to be the odd ones out.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that, undead or not, Revenants were people, they have drives and ambitions that mortals can understand, even if they can't comprehend the intensity that drives them. An Illithid, on the other hand, is an aberration; even if they don't desire to reshape the world in the image of their home plane, they are still alien and otherworldly. Considering them abominably cruel and malevolent is actually wrong- they're so alien that this is merely the best way humans can interpret their actions. They're a race of miniature, weakling, Great Old Ones- that's their fundamental theme.
Except they're not abberations...they just play them in the game. There's nothing remotely alien about them. Now...granted, their motivations may not be cruel or malevolent, but there's nothing alien about their motivations either. Ensure the Illithid empire exists and endures, at any cost...especially at the cost of all other elder brains and illithids but myself and my progeny. There's no secret racial agenda to hide behind that. There might be individual agendas hidden WITHIN it...but even that isn't remotely alien.
Aberration and alien are just words to make things sound cool. Creatures can have alien anatomy, but they can't have thoughts any different than our own, because we're the ones thinking those thoughts. At best...it would be like chaotic neutral used to be. "By the gods! Why did you do that?" "Because we're aberrations, and that's how we roll."
Well crap, now I want to play an Illithid that acts and sounds like Alec Baldwin.
An Illithid ... is an aberration; even if they don't desire to reshape the world in the image of their home plane, they are still alien and otherworldly. Considering them abominably cruel and malevolent is actually wrong- they're so alien that this is merely the best way humans can interpret their actions. They're a race of miniature, weakling, Great Old Ones- that's their fundamental theme.
Illithids can be a perfectly playable race, but not without losing part of what defines them as illithid in the first place. They and other aberrant creatures are the ultimate Other. Statting out the race presupposes that they are comprehensible to us. It's not just that they're evil, like drow. They're out of synch, incompatible with the world. They don't fit. Which is also why they're twisted, in both senses of the word:
...considering their dietary needs should rarely be a part of the game anyway, since no one else's usually is.
No one else is more designed to be an "alien horror." Pint-sized Cthulhus aren't frightening enough, so they also devour your brain straight through your skull, and their larvae are as nightmarish.
The Dungeon Master's Guide doesn't touch on "Far Realm adventures" really, but it does compare different "scales of conflict." I think most of the problem with illithids is where they fall on the scale. In order of increasing epic-ness:
- Village vs local threat
- Barony vs regional threat
- Nation vs continental threat
- World vs threat to world's existence
- Good Gods vs Evil Gods, a threat to the world's (and Astral Sea's) nature
- All Gods vs Primordials, a threat to the entire cosmology's existence
(The PC hardline!)
- All Gods & Primordials vs the Abyss - possibly?
Implicitly beyond all that, though, is:
-Everyone vs the Far Realm, which threatens to corrupt all reality and its inhabitants beyond comprehension.
There's going to be more resistance to the idea of an Aberrant PC than any other because Aberrant creatures are an embodied madness that is not supposed to exist. It's the Drizzt dilemma at Power Level 9000. I think Primordial origins are as far down the list of epic conflicts that most players are comfortable letting a PC go. What common enemy could Aberrant creatures truly share with others?
By the way, I really like your homebrew race writeup, LuciferNietzsche. I wouldn't have thought the Illithid could be so balanced. I still don't know how I'd roleplay one, but I could certainly roll one now.
Edit: Ah, beaten to the punch about being "alien." I still think they're too different in the head to really understand. Like the alien in Independence Day, we know what illithids want, but not how they think.