Talk:Illithid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Article merged: See old talk-page for Ilsensine here. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Article merged: See old talk-page for Maanzecorian here. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illithid[edit]

Not that I'm some sort of D&D playing nerd or anything, but this is much more commonly known as illithids, IMO. Tuf-Kat

I've moved it. Tuf-Kat

There are no mind flayers or illithids in ADOM, nor any creature with similar brain-sucking powers. Are you sure that they exist in "many other roguelike games"?
Ekaterin.

Angband and Nethack have mind flayers, as presumably do most of their numerous descendants. Salsa Shark 08:20, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How come no one mentioned Forgotten realms? Drizzt Do'Urden has both battled illithids and been captured by them. Samael the Artificer 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samael the Artificer (talk • contribs)

Trademark infringement?[edit]

Wouldn't this article violate the Wizards of the Coast trademark on "Illithid"? Vaxalon 18:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Illithid is included in the system resource document, and is considered open game content under the OGL, as far as I know. I don't think there's any infringment here, because Wizards of the Coast has already given permission for the Illithid's use in stuff other than their own. Riggermantis 10:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Illithid is not considered Open Game Content, and is not included in the System Reference Document. It is one of the monsters considered Product Identity by Wizards and, as such, is protected content under the OGL. --68.237.14.235 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure if Wikipedia were to publish a d20 book with illithids in it under the OGL, then it would be a violation and WotC would care, but I doubt an article meant to answer the question of "What the hell is that?" violates anything. MasterGrazzt 07:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why was ny reference to Mindflayers running a secret cabal at Cravath, Swaine & Moore removed? There is a fair amount of convincing evidence leading to this conclusion. I am not a tin-hat crazy; this stuff i for real.

Because CS&M is a real-world entity, and illithids are make-believe. Therefore... Yeah, you're pretty much the definition of a tin-hatter.

Cleanup[edit]

Well, I am a "D&D playing nerd". Gave the page a quick revision. I think I got most of the grammar, but someone should run another set of eyes over it.

Another thing: this page has quite a bit of info on these guys that's not in any of the core books, especially concerning their lore and the mechanics of "ceremorphosis". Sure would be nice to get sources for this - or at least someone who can back this up. --STGM 09:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Info on Ceremorphosis can be found in the Fiend Folio, I beleive, under the entry for half-illithid. --Durahan 6 December 2005

Most of the info here can be found in 'Lords of Madness: The Book of Abberations", including detailed information on ceremorphosis. Quinn 202.172.123.185 11:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morse code?[edit]

It states that their system of lines felt by tentacles is similar to morse code, but wouldn't it be closer to braille? --Psyphics 19:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

76.214.149.244 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting speculation - never thought of it that way. Wouldn't be good to add to the article, though. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.67.158 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK...? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abheration[edit]

Could someone with the Book of Abherrations get some info on these Illithids/M ind flayers, please?
I don't quite get what you want. There's enough info for someone unversed in D&D to figure out exactly what the illithid are, and that's the sort of thing Wikipedia exists for. MasterGrazzt 07:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete references[edit]

see Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games

Robbstrd 22:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragonlance MC, in which the Yaggol appears, has David Cook and Jon Winter listed under "design concept", and Bruce A. Heard listed as "design coordinator". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.240.130 (talk • contribs) .
I'd go with "Heard, Bruce A, et al." [1]-Robbstrd 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try again, please[edit]

  • Gygax, Gary? The Strategic Review #1, (TSR, 1975).

Putting a question mark after uncertain parts of a reference is the lazy way of writing refs. Please find out the correct information (Google is your friend). Furthermore, since the SR is a periodical, you should list the title of the article the mind flayer appears in.-Robbstrd 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoidberg?[edit]

Nothing serious, but anyone noticed how similar zoidberg is to a mindflayer/illithid in terms of head appearance and eating mannerism? Jackpot Den 14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoidberg doesn't eat brains, and the tentacles are arranged differentl. Also, Illithids have an endoskeleton whereas zoidberg is crab/lobsterlike, with a shell. The only thing going is the number of tentacles. 82.31.111.204 (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

It seems that some consider that image of the cover of Lords of Madness to be a proper picture of an Illithid and so they are going to delete the other, much better and more clear image that has been uploaded as Image:Illithid.jpg. Can we have a consensus on which image better illustrates a Illithid? After a week, the decision will be out of our hands. The choice is:

I choose B. -- Lilwik 11:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be using a copyrighted book cover to illustrate an article that isn't about that book. Image B seems fine. --McGeddon 12:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, polling is not how concensus is achieved on Wikipedia. Second, image B is also copyrighted, has a disputed fair use rationale tag, AND has been deleted once before for use violations, IIRC. Use of book covers seems to be acceptable fair use throughout Wikipedia.--Robbstrd 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who's polling? And have you looked at the reason for the disputed fair use rationale tag? The only reason it's fair use is disputed is because we already have another image that supposedly shows an Illithid. If we get rid of the book cover, the dispute goes away. Plus, is this article about the Illithid, or about a book? -- Lilwik 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of book covers might happen on Wikipedia, but it's not acceptable fair use - WP:NFC specifically mentions "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item", and specifically rules out "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the Wikipedia article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." --McGeddon 08:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that using Image:Illithid.jpg is fair use, then? It isn't. At one time, several D&D articles on Wikipedia featured such images, whether artwork from various sourcebooks (like the image in question) or photos of D&D minis. The vast majority have been deleted, due to having been deemed unacceptable for fair use.--Robbstrd 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you explain why it's not fair use? (Aside from the free image, since you were saying it wasn't fair use before the free image appeared.) When you leave us hanging like that, we're likely to come to the conclusion that this case is different from those other images. After all this, is the Illithid article. Surely it is fair use to have one Illithid pictured in the Illithid article. Can you give an example that closely parallels this case where the image was deleted? There are a vast number of examples of articles that use nonfree images to give a picture of the thing they are talking about. -- Lilwik 02:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Item 1 of WP:NFC is that "non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". If a user-drawn or out-of-copyright image would serve the exact same purpose as the copyrighted equivalent, we must go with the former. --McGeddon 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly, we have a third image to consider. This one is especially interesting because it is free. Therefore, I think it is clear that according to the fair use rules, we no longer have fair use for image A and we should use this one instead:

-- Lilwik 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just use all of them. Who cares about copyright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.157.46 (talk • contribs).

We. -- ReyBrujo 05:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.157.46 (talk • contribs).
WP:NFC. Welcome to Wikipedia. --McGeddon 09:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're just images, not real content like text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.157.46 (talk • contribs).
Images are real content, and are protected by copyright law just as text is. --Pak21 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have a consensus to go with image C, the free one, since that is the only one the fair use policy will allow. I have removed the book cover. -- Lilwik 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that image looks incredibly stupid. I think you should use the book cover.--Yeerkalia 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we don't have fair use for the book cover because we have this free image to use. However, the license for this image allows anyone to modify it, so long as attribution is preserved. Feel free to modify it and upload the new version, like Mindflayer2.jpg, with a link on the the image page to the original. That should satisfy the attribution part of the license, and if you've improved the image we will use your version. -- Lilwik 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we delete the free image so we no longer have it and then we can use the book cover.--Yeerkalia 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that goes against the whole "free encyclopedia" thing we have here. — SheeEttin {T/C} 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one, love the free image. It's reminiscent of the original Mind Flayer illustration in Monster Manual.66.77.144.5 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, reminiscent of an era when the drawings were horrible. Surely there is someone that has drawn something less childlike and garish. ----

We need a better image does anyone have a free mind flayer picture? Tanderson11 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, any fan-drawn image of an illithid would be a derivative work and, therefore, wouldn't be free. This is the best that we can do without using official art, which is of even more questionable fair-use. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoon[edit]

Should there be mention of the followers of Thoon (Monster Manual V) as a separate group of Illithids? The book makes it quite clear that they differ significantly from normal Illithids in motives and, in some cases, abilities. Xiphe 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're just part of the wonderful variety of illithid sects. (Boom-tish). But seriously, folks...that's not true in all settings. In Eberron, for example, they are actually closer than normal illithids to their true origins, since they've been back to their home plane far more recently. 137.166.68.65 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Count Dorku[reply]

Citations[edit]

We need citation on the illithid variant section, does anyone know if we're allowed to use dnd books as sources? Tanderson11 (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely may! :) It's better than nothing at all. Where possible, we need to use reliable seconday sources such as these, but in the absence of those we might as well go with what we have. :) BOZ (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What BOZ said. Additionally, whenever you happen to come across a reliable source, please add it at WP:DND/R for ease of reference. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaggols[edit]

I don't know anything about dragonlance so I'm ignorant of yaggols, are they an illithid variant or should they be related creatures? Tanderson11 (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up yaggols on http://www.dlnexus.com/lexicon/15109.aspx and it doesn't mention illithids at all, they only look similar do we need them at all? Tanderson11 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, they are a related creature... but don't take my word for that; whenever possible, always go straight to the source. :) BOZ (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adversary[edit]

Do we need this, we could list thousands of specific illithid related things, we want this article to be consise as possible, we don't need this clogging it up.Tanderson11 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I keep forgetting to sign Tanderson11 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It takes time to get used to doing that. :) Don't know the significance of the Adversary thing, as I don't currently have access to Dawn of the Overmind, but undoubtedly that part could be shortened and still get the point across. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I propose the adversary section for deletion, it is just not relevant enough. Tanderson11 (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

The bold sections about certain gods have to go, if we want we should create separate articles for the gods. Tanderson11 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead and removing the god section and making a new article for the main illithid god (can't remember his name at this time) Tanderson11 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd added in the god sections from a merge because the two articles were too short, but it does make sense for them to be separate. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cythos[edit]

Whoever said illithids are inspired better step up to the plate and tell us how they know because we need citations. Tanderson11 (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible refs?[edit]

[2], [3] ???, [4] BOZ (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Ctrl-Alt-Del should be added. Jhaagsma (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu[edit]

How come nobody has even mentioned that the Illithid are basically wingless Cthulhus?? It's very unlikely that hte D&D creators just "happened" to imagine a creature that looks just like Cthulhu.--20-dude (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, hey... that image sucks[edit]

Anyone have a better image they can post instead of some 13 year old's deviantart crap on the article now?

Maanzecorian[edit]

I removed the uncited claim that Maanzecorian was the primary illithid deity prior to his death. (In my change notes I incorrectly cited "Monster Mythos (1992)", the correct title is actually Monster Mythology.) While it is possible that Maanzecorian's prominence was retconned at a later date, I cannot find anything supporting this claim in any 2e, 3e or 3.5e sources I have at hand (I have a lot). If Maanzecorian's level of godhood was indeed retconned, this retcon should be noted or at the very least cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.61.94 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ORIGIN OF THE MIND FLAYERS[edit]

Publication history The Mind flayers which were created by Gary Gygax, did in fact thaat an inspiration for the Mind Flayers was in fact the cover painting of the book The Burrowers Beneath written by Brian Lumley.Ok thats fine but that book that the cover art is inpired by is in fact Cthulhu Mythos fan fiction so H.P. Lovecraft does in fact deserve credit in this Wikipedia article for being the origin of the cause if Mr.Gygax's inspiration because if it was not For him and his Cthulhu Mythos Mr.Lumley would not have been inspired to write that book.


<--REX— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.110.212 (talk • contribs)

"Fan fiction" and "inspired by" are not the same thing. "Fan fiction" is a non-professional writer taking someone else's copyright work and making their own stories with the same to minimally altered characters without any expectation of being published. Illithids are not Cthulhu, and are only visually similar, thus they are only inspired by. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Illithid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illithid&oldid=1204738857"