Why is it okay to have a good Drow but not okay to have a good Mindflayer?

Go back to /v/

>>96137320 (OP)
One is an elf from North Korea.
One is an alien being incapable of empathy, which is biologically wired to see you as prey. May as well ask why malaria can't be good.

>>96137335
>May as well ask why malaria can't be good.
although Malaria can't really be evil either, Good and Evil imply a choice being made, so something without enough free will to choose to be Good can't be said to be Evil either

>>96137432
>Good and Evil imply a choice being made
they're energy planes, read the book

>>96137320 (OP)
Diet, mostly.

>>96137320 (OP)
Mindflayers eat people.

How many times are you going to make this thread? Also again, Gaider wanted an Illithid paladin in the cancelled Beamdog project so you were going to have a good one, just the project never came to life

>>96137458
not reading that homebrew "lore"

>>96137335
>May as well ask why malaria can't be good.
But Malaria will only make you stronger if you wield the correct passport.

>>96137320 (OP)
Mind flayers aren't allowed to even THINK about betraying the elder brain. A good drow is rare, but a good mind flayer would be executed the instant the idea of going against what mind flayers stand for crosses his mind.

That and being cerebrovores with a strong preference for intelligent beings their very needs to survive leans strongly towards evil.

>>96137320 (OP)
The Mindflayer crab-bucket is backed by a telepathic police-state apparatus and they have a dietary dependency on an Evil act.

>>96137432
>Good and Evil imply a choice being made
No, they're objective kinds of energy in D&D. Hence the long history of Alignment mechanics.

>>96137692
It's a weird way of putting the Upper and Lower Planes, but accurate enough to the Great Wheel cosmology the ENTIRE way back. But them lacking "Apostolic" souls puts a big asterisk on the associations involved in getting an Alignment the "normal" way. Hardly the biggest offender given the Kaorti get the "made of Evil" subtype as something from the fucking Far Realms and the powered-by-an-entirely-different-class-behind-two-Transitive-Planes Undead continue to create baffling contradictions in the deontology.

>>96137320 (OP)
I had a swashbuckling ilithid in my spelljammer game. He was a displomat from the Ilithid Empire in Astromundi. He swore his name, Magus Dreadmore, was just a translation error. He actually was a good guy, but only because the bad guys were the Arcane.

>>96137887
>energy
It's not "energy", it's a cosmic rule. Hell is Evil but Evil is not Hell.

>>96137458
Oh, were we talking about energy planes or were we talking about morality? Because you're gonna argue that those are the same thing in that setting then you still have to explain why Drow can be good but Mindlfayers can't.

>>96137785
The elder brain doesn't have infinite range and there are canonical examples of illithid who escape to live solitary lives for various reasons. Not least of course being alhoons.

>>96138009
>why Drow can be good but Mindlfayers can't
Because Drow don't starve to death if they stop eating peoples' brains, dipshit.

>>96137887
How many paladins commit murder? They rationalize it as killing people they deem to deserve it. They say murdering bandits, rapists and murderers isn't wrong. They say murdering illithid isn't wrong.

Why couldn't an illithid only eat evil people? Unlike a paladin, they would be respecting the quarry and turning that death to some good purpose. Paladins are just those assholes who go shoot deer and leave the corpse to rot.

>>96138028
So now you've added even more work for yourself because if that's the argument you're going with, you have to explain why paladins exist and why they don't instantly fall when they kill orcs.
Otherwise you're admitting that it's possible for a good illithid to exist by eating evil brains.
And that's before we get into the weeds of talking about how it's possible for true neutral to exist.
Face it: the entire alignment bullshit is BULLSHIT and it makes just as much sense for a mindflayer to be good as anything else related to that setting.

>>96138028
There are literally dozens of different spells that solve hunger / food requirements in various ways. And there's been quite a few psionic powers to do it, too.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/sustenance.htm

>>96138086
Not the anon you're talking to and just answering your very, very stupid question.

And your red herring isn't relevant, dipshit. Eating people is evil. Paladins killing orcs has no bearing on whether it's evil to eat people.

>>96138050
>>96138086
Alignment or not, I'm not trusting myself around a self-proclaimed cannibal nor a space squid that wants to bite through my skull and devour my brains. And while I'm not trusting most Drow that were raised in a society of backstabbers, I trust them 0.1% more than the guys who view me as food. That should be reason enough.

>>96138028
Do the gods starve to death if people don't give them their souls...? Even the good gods?

>>96138113
It's not a red herring just because you don't like that you were proven wrong. There is no way to construct a consistent morality on the premise that killing is wrong except when paladins do it. It's a fundamental contradiction in the axioms you've set up.
You will have to find some other reason why illithid must be evil because that one cannot be it.

>>96138123
>more red herrings
Tell you what: come up with a point related to whether or not it's wrong to eat peoples' brains, and then it'll be relevant to the conversation of whether or not Illithids are evil for eating peoples' brains. Your red herrings aren't relevant.

>>96138108
>But what if they only eat evil brains?
>What if they live off magic sustenance and are the one super-special exception in their entire inherently evil race?

Jesus christ are you pitching an aftercool special to the CW network or something? What is this corny bullshit?

>>96138133
>It's not a red herring just because you don't like that you were proven wrong.
I said: Illithids are evil cuz they eat brains
You said: B-b-but paladins kill orcs!

Yes dipshit: that's a text-book red herring. Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's wrong to eat peoples' brains. Flatly, absolutely, utterly nothing.

>>96138115
We were not talking about whether you trust them. We were not talking about whether you like them. They shouldn't trust or like you, either.

They are smarter compared to you than you are compared to a cow. Are you vegan? And they know that you want to murder them just because you think they're icky. You think you're so righteous while you call them things like "space squid"?

Seems like they're entirely justified in treating you as the mindless cattle you are. No need to worry about the moral weight of your life or opinions just like you don't dedicate your life to making fruit flies happy.

>>96137320 (OP)
that is like asking why people can't stop being evil and eating cows. Cows are tasty to us, we are tasty to mindflayers.

It literally is okay to have both. We have had both.

>>96138135
It's the Forgotten Realms, anon. It's already a corny stupid childrens' cartoon. And you need to grow up a bit, yourself, since apparently "red herring" is just whatever you don't like being confronted with. I know you just found out about atheism and what the fuck ever, kiddo, but terms have meanings and that isn't what a red herring is. You forgot while scanning through RationalWiki that you have to actually understand what you read, not just vomit whatever train of consciousness.

>>96138168
>"red herring" is just whatever you don't like being confronted with.
No, a red herring is when someone says something like "eating peoples' brains is wrong." And then you mention a buncha other random shit that has nothing to do with whether or not it's wrong to eat peoples' brains, and say "lol therefore I'm right!"

You're not. You're a moron.

>>96137320 (OP)
Ask the 5e general.

>>96138143
No, it has everything to do with it. It highlights the contradiction in your reasoning. You don't like that you're being confronted by a fundamental contradiction in the premise of your belief system and it's getting you upset because you've fused your identity to it.

But it's not a red herring. You're currently in a rage panic and are unable to meaningfully engage with the conversation, so you're done here. Go play outside.

>>96138175
So you admit you're illiterate or stupid or both. Glad we got that settled. You're excused now.

>>96138178
What premise? I said "it's wrong to eat peoples' brains." Everything else you just made up. Dipshit.

>>96138187
>Haha I used red herrings, invented arguments and attributed to you, and called you names
>So I win the argument, right?
Dipshit.

>>96138152

>>96137957
>It's not "energy", it's a cosmic rule.
That in most editions "Evil" is a distinct measurable property of a thing with direct applications says it's both.

>>96138009
>Oh, were we talking about energy planes or were we talking about morality?
In the standard Great Wheel cosmology of D&D, they overlap.

>>96138050
>How many paladins commit murder?
"Killing Bad" is not in the deontology of the Upper Planes, while some factor of eating people's brains is. Running around as judge, jury, and executioner according to Slaydar is entirely fine by the objective cosmological Good, though possibly not by Law. Do remove real-life ethics from your deliberations, because there are a LOT of ways D&D Alignment diverges from them due to the constraints of the murderhobo gameplay loop.

>>96138135
>Jesus christ are you pitching an aftercool special to the CW network or something? What is this corny bullshit?
There actually is an existing example of fucking with Ceremorphosis by developing a dietary substitute with the Adversary and IIRC the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds has one using a Ring of Sustenance. "Always" Alignments aren't quite 100%, as the Succubus Paladin exists to highlight, just intrinsic circumstances that "essentially guarantee" the Alignment.

>>96138152
>They are smarter compared to you than you are compared to a cow. Are you vegan?
The difference is that cows aren't people. And that's actually an objectively-measurable thing. In D&D, animal cruelty is bad on a virtue-ethics basis, not Evil in itself.

>>96138178
>You don't like that you're being confronted by a fundamental contradiction in the premise of your belief system
Again, D&D Alignment is not real-life ethics and operates on deontology. There is no contradiction because there is no general "killing bad", and thus it must be something else about the brain-eating.

>>96138178
>You don't like that you're being confronted by a fundamental contradiction in the premise of your belief system
Question.

Did Anon actually say he thinks paladins killing orcs is good? As near as I can tell he just didn't engage with the point on the grounds of wanting to focus on whether mind flayers killing people for their brains is evil.

If so, then he's not "contradicting" anything, he's just not engaging with a tangent he views as irrelevant to the discussion at-hand.

(I am not the Anon you were talking to, this is my second post in the thread, my first was >>96137492)

SPEAKING PERSONALLY...
A paladin who kills an orc, for no other reason then the fact that they're an orc, falls.

>>96138238
>There actually is an existing example of fucking with Ceremorphosis by developing a dietary substitute with the Adversary and IIRC the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds has one using a Ring of Sustenance.
>WotC retcons to lore
Ah. Now I see the problem you're facing more clearly. Sure, I guess. If you wanna accept WotC lore then sure there can be good illithids and any other stupid-ass thing ever, because it's basically a children's cartoon.

>>96138245
>Did Anon actually say he thinks paladins killing orcs is good?
Nope. And you're right: I won't be sucked into a red herring about paladins and orcs. But I'm happy to agree that a paladin who eats orc brains is evil, by the same logic that an illithid is evil for eating brains.

>>96138249
I mean, is there a particular reason why a Ring of Sustenance wouldn't feed a mind flayer, the same way it would feed anything else?

I believe it's 2e write-up was this:

>This magical ring provides its wearer with life-sustaining nourishment even though he or she might go for days without food or drink. The ring also refreshes the body and mind, so that its wearer needs to sleep only two hours per day to gain the benefit of eight hours of sleep.
>The ring must be worn for a full week in order to function properly. If it is removed, the wearer immediately loses its benefit and must wear it for another week to reattune it to himself. After functioning for any period of seven consecutive days, a ring of sustenance will cease to function for a week while it replenishes itself.

Sounds like it would feed a 2e mind flayer to me.

>>96138267
No, you're right. There is no logical reason except that "but he's a good illithid" is so stupid and wasteful of perfectly awesome, actually original to D&D, monsters.

>>96138249
The Adversary is TSR-era lore.

>>96138286
No it doesn't.

>>96138267
Depends on the setting, but the more popular depictions have the need for devouring brains be less on the nutrients of the brain itself and more the psychic energies i.e. the memories and personality of the eaten that account for their obsession with grey matter. So depending on how you view it, the "refreshes the mind" bit also applies to psychic energies, or it doesn't and the mind flayer experiences a sensation of feeling healthy yet starving to death at the same time.

>>96138279
I mean I'm going to be completely honest with you, I've never really been that pushed on mind flayers. They're just not my cup of tea. So I tend to be pretty kind to anything that does something different with them from the bog-standard presentation that I just find boring.

Doesn't have to be "good", mind. Like, I admit I really like the concept of a mind flayer with arcane magic potential fucking off from the rest of the hive mind to go do his own thing as a wizard (and eventually, probably, an Alhoon).

It's also why I liked the original 3.5 version of the Neothelid from Lords of Madness, since it was given an Intelligence of 16 - nearly as high as a Mind Flayer. Lords of Madness also introduced the idea that illithids don't actually need to eat sentient brains for sustenance, per se, so much as going too long without doing so slowly drives them insane.

The implication I took from that, is that the neothelid is actually the "natural" life-cycle of the Mind Flayer tadpole. Mind Flayers are what you get when the tadpole gets into a humanoid, but that's not a natural state for it, and the "insanity" that a mind flayer experiences without eating sentient brains is actually its natural neothelid instincts and mindset taking over and trying to reconcile the fact that it SHOULD be a 20-foot-long psychic worm thing but instead it's stuck in a humanoid body.

>>96138358
Here lemme fix that by selling it by selling you on them.

Ok so in the dark, there are these crazy telepathic evil motherfuckers with squid heads who wanna eat your brain.

>>96137327
Go back to the retirement home you decrepit balding faggot

>>96138394
Meh.

>>96138408
For the record it's not that I don't like original-to-D&D monsters. I absolutely love these adorable little buggers, for example.

Monster Girl Encyclopedia has both.

>>96138314
The original ecology on them was that they didn't need to eat brains at all. They just really liked it. It was an expression of power. They enslaved people, built tall underground cities with no stairs to any of the doors (because they can fly), enslaved everything, and ate brains just 'cuz it's fun and tasty. Original mind flayers were psychotic, psychic, brain eating badasses who just wanted to enslave entire planets.

>>96138459
Ah, so basically they were innately dicks, and the idea of a "good mind flayer" is more hypothetical than anyway realistic to the general species.

>>96138304
The Illithiad page 35:
>The Adversary was an illithid lost to itself; a partial personality of uncommon strength consumed a mind flayer's personality and sought to overthrow all illithids through the innocent guise of a fellow mind flayer. Despite its apparent popularity as a story told to frighten young-adult mind flayers, the Adversary legend remains just that; no sage has ever catalogued the existence of such a being.
The example is from the Dawn of the Overmind module by the same writer, who was hired by TSR in 1995 and had author credits before the buyout. And got Gary Gygax's personal approval on Return to the Tomb of Horrors.

>>96137320 (OP)
Perhaps you shouls ask the worldbuildibg general. It was made for nogames /v/ermin like you.

>>96138501
Oh interesting. Alright: you're right and I was wrong.

Thoughts on making the Precursors in an SF setting Mindflayers?

>>96139409
80s/90s D&D Mind Flayers were from a dark planet deep in space. They were planet-enslaving monsters who appeared from the most distant worlds and planes. The Gith saw them as world-conquerors.

So yeah: I think that they work out really well to fulfill that role. Except in that they're specifically D&D monsters. You could just port them wherever you want, sure. But it's so iconically D&D that I won't ever see your setting as being "D&D but scifi."

>>96137542
I guess that could work, if one was somehow capable of empathizing with regular people. Paladins go around smiting evil, so it'd be a good way to find bad guys you don't have to feel guilty about feeding on.

>>96137320 (OP)
Good Drow are so they can be pure and resistant to rape attempts, making it more rewarding when you finally force them to fulfill their Elven duty and be raped.

>>96137320 (OP)
I really don't give much of a fuck about D&D trash, but aren't they basically just magic xenomorphs? You can't really make that good.

>>96139720
It's at least extremely difficult to reconcile with cosmic Good. It's much easier to become Neutral, where yes you're a brain-eating monster but you're not an asshole about it.

>>96139848
Sometimes you need to replace a word to see if what you've said makes any sense. In this case, replace "brain-eating" with "child-raping".

>>96139720
>but aren't they basically just magic xenomorphs?
I mean an immediate difference is that mind flayers have individual personalities and intelligence. A lot of both, actually. They can talk, plan, negotiate, be reasoned with.

The 2e module Night Below has a great example of this; there's a bunch of assholes called aboleths trying to build a giant mind-control tower, and on the way to destroy it you can meet a bunch of mind flayers who think that's just as much bullshit as you do, and you can choose to work together with them. Their leader sends over a nicely-worded letter and everything.

You'll never get a letter like this from a xenomorph.

>>96137320 (OP)
Its been okay since 3rd.

>>96139868
One is a physical need that you have to fulfill in order to not degenerate or die of starvation. Does there exist a creature that must rape children or die of starvation?

>>96139914
I've never understood what she possibly could have been eating.

>>96139955
[Insert your choice of /pol/ response here]

>>96139969
Goodberry

>>96139976
Oh come on, bringing that folk group up is just grossly inappropriate. The Americans aren't that bad.

>>96137320 (OP)
I don't think I'd call Omeluum good at least not rules as written, guy once teamed up with a lich so he'd get the brain while the lich got the soul. Sure he's now doing good stuff but he's clearly closer to neutral in actions and mindset.

>>96138050
>They say murdering bandits, rapists and murderers isn't wrong. They say murdering illithid isn't wrong.
Lawfully speaking killing these people is not unlawful and therefor not murder. Killing isn't in and of itself an evil act.

>>96138086
>Otherwise you're admitting that it's possible for a good illithid to exist by eating evil brains.
Eating any brain is considered an evil act by the rules of the planes, killing orcs is not. This isn't a moral relativity thing the cosmology itself directly has rules that say "doing x is evil no matter the context".

>>96137320 (OP)
Ontological evil doesn't make sense and I am tired of pretending it does. Mindflayer free of the oppressive shackles of the elder brain can become good person.

Why are fallen celestials so common but risen fiends so rare?

>>96137524
>Mindflayers eat people.
OH MY GOD JUST LET THEM ENJOY THINGS, YOU BIGOT
it's ok according to the new lore they only eat white males shorter than 6'

>>96137335
That's it, my next PC is going to be a Chaotic Good Sentient Virus.

>>96141004
literally cleaning up the gene pool, based

>>96137320 (OP)
I don't think it's okay to have good drow either

>>96141032
Alex Mercer?

>>96141046
counterpoint: vantablack elf ass

>>96141059
vantablack elf ass is made for being ravaged through conquest, not courtship

>>96141079
the dainty hands of a maidenless elf wrote this post

>>96137320 (OP)
Neither can be good and should be exterminated on sight.

>>96137320 (OP)
their first act in life is to murder a sentient creature devouring their brain and occupying their skull like a hermet crab occupies a shell.

it is inescapable, they are evil from the moment of birth, the very act that brings them to life is one of the most depraved slaughters known to man

>>96137320 (OP)
Because other sentient species are a mind flayer's food source. Same for vampires.