OD&D Abilities / Les caractéristiques dans OD&D

Inspiré par une discussion en cours sur le forum du Donjon du Dragon (au sujet des connaissances du joueur opposées à celles du personnage, sujet de discorde par excellence), je me suis replongé dans les trois petits livrets bruns, et plus spécifiquement Men & Magic pour aller relire la description et les bonus octroyés par les six caractéristiques qui définissent le personnage. Et cette lecture a été édifiante, je dois l'avouer. 

Tout d'abord, l'ordre dans lequel elles sont présentées (qui a a été conservé dans les éditions un tant soit peu old-school de D&D) est révélateur. Il ne s'agit pas des trois caractéristiques physiques puis des trois autres mentales, mais c'est plutôt les trois caractéristiques primaires qui ouvrent le bal (prime requisite), càd Force (pour les combattants), Intelligence (pour les utilisateurs de magie) et Sagesse (pour les clercs). Toutes trois déterminent le bonus (ou malus) d'expérience. La Force et la Sagesse n'offrent rien d'autre (il est juste fait mention dans Underworld and Wilderness Adventures que les personnages particulièrement petits ou faibles n'ouvrent les portes que sur un 1, sans autres précisions), contrairement à l'Intelligence de laquelle on déduit le nombre de langues. Pas de sorts supplémentaires, de bonus aux dégâts ou encore au toucher.

Suivent ensuite les trois caractéristiques secondaires, c'est-à-dire Constitution, Dextérité et Charisme déterminant des bonus ne touchant pas aux gains de points d'expérience, et concernent respectivement points de coup/résistance, tirs de projectiles et nombre de suivants/loyautés d'iceux-là/réactions initiales.      

Il apparaît clairement que l'Intelligence et le Charisme sont les deux caractéristiques les plus utiles du jeu old-school (alors que c'est précisément ces deux-là que les préjugés sur la vieille école qualifie peu respectueusement de dump stats) puisque touchant chacune à deux domaines importants : les langues indispensables pour communiquer avec les monstres qui n'ont que 20% de chances de parler le commun et l'expérience (qui se passe de commentaires) pour l'Intelligence ; les suivants très importants pour les combats (la survie des personnages joueurs en dépend !) et les réactions des monstres/PNJ pour le Charisme !
De plus, il est amusant de constater que ces deux caractéristiques sont dites mentales et qu'un des arguments de ceux qui privilégient les capacités des personnage contre celles des joueurs (jets de connaissances, compétences etc.) est que ces caractéristiques dites mentales sont inutiles, ne couvrent que des domaines trop réduits et méritent qu'on les revalorise par cette prévalence des capacités [dont mentales] des personnage ! 

PS : Au fait, je souhaite la bienvenue du coté français à Marc de Grinçomanoir. Voilà qui porte mon nombre de suivants à 9. Le niveau supérieur n'est pas loin !

***

Inspired by an ongoing discussion on the forum of Le Donjon du Dragon (about player capability opposed to character capability, the ultimate point of contention), I read in Men & Magic the description and bonuses granted by the six abilities that define the character. And this reading was enlightening, I must admit.First, the order in which they are presented (which has been kept in most of later old-school editions) is revealing. It is not the three physical abilities first and then the three mental abilitiels, but rather the three primary requisite that open the show, ie Force (for fighting-men), Intelligence (for magic users) and Wisdom (for clerics). All three determine the experience bonus (or malus). Strength and Wisdom offer nothing else (it's just mentioned in Underworld and Wilderness Adventures that particularly small or weak characters open the doors on a 1, without further details), contrary to Intelligence from which the number of languages known by the character ​​is deduced. No additional spells, damage or hit bonuses.

Then follow the three secondary characteristics, ie Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma determining the bonuses that are not related with experience points, respectively hit points / resistance, missile fire and number of hireligns / their loyalty / reaction rolls. 
It is clear that Intelligence and Charisma are the two most useful abilities in a old-school game (although it is precisely these two abilities that are called disrespectfully "dump stats" by modern gamers) since each is touching two major areas: languages needed to communicate with monsters which have only a 20% chance to speak common, experience (which speaks for itself) for Intelligence, hirelings very important for survival and monster reactions for Charisma! 
Moreover, it is ironic that these two abilities are known as mental and one of the arguments of those who favor character capability against player capabilty (knowledge rolls, skills, etc.) is that these so-called mental characteristics are useless and deserve revalues ​​by the prevalence of character capability !

PS : I would like to to welcome Tenkar, innkeeper of some renown, and Philip Rice on the English side of the blog. Have a nice read!
And incidentally, I'm about to level up.

Alignment Languages

Today I am dealing with a particularly controversial subject: the alignment languages​​! Wayne Rossi of Semper Initiativus Unum spoke about it a month ago here (but I just read his post yesterday beacause I am especially in arrears in reading blogs I usually follow). This post is very interesting, I advise everyone to take a look at it. However, the author evade the main question about alignment languages​​, ie their credibility in a fantasy world. It is on this point that I'm going to focus.

To start, here is the authors' paragraph about them :  

Law, Chaos and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisional tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack. 
-Dave Arneson & Gary Gygax, LBBs.

To establish the credibility of alignment languages ​​it is necessary to find precedents or analogous situations in real life and works that inspired D&D. The most frequently cited literary example is Tolkien's Black Speech. But be aware that this creation of Sauron is not spoken by all creatures of Mordor: only a few elites speak it perfectly, while a mob of orcs stammer a patois crossed with Black Speech. Yet it is a good example of a language alignment: only evil creatures speak it more or less (with the exception of some divine creatures, like Gandalf), and it produces an effect of disgust and repulsion on all other races (because of their different alignment).

In reality, what is the closest thing to a language alignment is a religious language (which in itself is not so surprising that alignment in Tolkien or Morcook are closely linked to gods - Valars - or divine creatures - Sauron, Lords of Chaos/Law -). To get closer to the conflict between alignments as presented in OD&D or Chainmail, let's take the example of the Crusades. In those times and those places, speaking Latin in front of a Saracen amounted to a death sentence. The Latin being a dead language used only for the Catholic religion, it is closer to me as to what an alignment language should be : the basic peasant knowing only a few words in Latin (Amen, in nomine Patris, Filii and and Sancti Spiritus) but sufficient (with a few other indications, such as the sign of the cross) to be recognized as Roman Catholic, while priests and scholars being able to have religious debates in that language.

So, based on these two examples (Latin and Black Speech), this is how I play alignment languages: except priests and scholars (and possibly some races or monsters with superior intelligence) of the specified alignment, creatures know only a few phrases, words, and liturgical formulas in their alignment language, which is sufficient for be recognized as being of this alignment, but not enough in most cases to discuss (which adds a language barrier to deal with the monsters of the same alignment).

Does this sounds good for you ?

Dices & situations.

I thought about it lately and have come to the conclusion that there was another difference between the new school and the old school.

Basically there are three types of situations :
Case 1 (referred to as 'precedence of chaos') : the dices interpret the scene;
Case 2 (referred to as 'precedence of characters') : the scene interpret the dices;
Case 3 (referred to as 'roll playing') : there is no interpretation beyond mere numbers.  

Let me explain this concept : it is simply the issue of what came before. Is it the dice roll, or the description of the action ? Or more simply, who describes the action / attempt? The players or the master?

For example, when a character tries to disarm his foe, it is clearly case 1, whereas if following a lucky shot, the character makes the monster retreat into a precipice (or when you make a reaction /morale roll), it is rather the case 2. When a character inflict 5 damage points to the monster, this is case 3. 

It is obvious that the three types of dice rolls should be present in a game (or in the rules of a role-playing game): case 1 to ensure that players' creativity and control can express themselves, case 2 so that unexpected and referee's creativity can spice up the game, and case 3 to highlight the other cases. 

But things are a little obscure when we look at the games of the new school : 'precedence of chaos' becomes 'precedence of history' and 'precedence of characters' becomes 'precedence of rules'. Indeed, codifying actions of the characters means giving free rein to comparative and therefore to
umbers-based desicions (or metagame). The choice is stolen to players by the rules. Similarly, scenario and rules steal the freedom of the dungeon master. Rules impose their tyranny by curbing players as much as referees. 


In conclusion, choose chaos rather than rules !
  

Clerics & Anti-clerics - Part 4

If I had to involve Clerics in my campaign (nonexistent for a while, but who knows ?), here is a description I would make for my players (a summary of what I said previously) :

Clerics are religious warriors who are part of a very hierarchical order worshiping one only God. Once they proved their worth against Chaos, they are finally allowed to follow the Lamas' (or specialist in the Book) teachings. These scholars guide clerics through the five levels of the Book, each one bringing them broader spiritual knowledge manifesting itself by supernatural powers that reflect the cleric's deeper understanding of Creation.

But this exegesis is not unique: other interpretations, sometimes based on apocryphal texts, exist. Some say the world is the result of an unfortunate blend of darkness and light that will eventually split again. Others go even further by suggesting that the Creator is imperfect, as its creation, and that God has nothing to do with neither one nor the other. Lawful clerics are part of the mainstream whereas Chaotic are heretics, often rejected and fought by the Church. Patriachs, who inhabit strongholds, are the regional leaders of the Church wheras Heresiarchs are their counterparts.

Finally, Anti-clerics, who swapped their healing magic against a necromantic magic, gather together in sects worshiping (or even conjuring) demon lords. These cults, based in fortresses, are led by Evil High Priests who seek to overthrow the Church and impose their religion. 

Rules modifications :

Clerics 
-Chaotic clerics can repel the undead.
-Clerics use spell books as magic-users.
-Limited to 5th-level spells.

Anti-clerics 
They are treated as Clerics except for the following: 
-Anti-clerics use Thief Advancement Table for experience only. 
-Charisma is their Prime Attribute. 
-Anti-clerics cast reversed versions of reversible spells.  
-Turn undead ability is replaced by the Demon Control ability. 
Demon Control : Anti-clerics can conjure and/or control a demon whose true name they discovered in their treaties of demonology. Anti-clerics roll on the Turning Undead Table to determine the success of their attempt. If the roll is successful, the demon is under control (as the effect of a charm) for 2d6 days x anti-cleric level. The dice roll must be kept secret. Once this time has elapsed, the demon is free to do what it wants (like disembowelling the anti-cleric) for a number of rounds equal to its type. After that, it returns to where it came from. If the roll is unsuccesful, the demon is free to do what it wants (like disembowelling the anti-cleric) for a number of rounds equal to its type. After that, it returns to where it came from.

Clerics & Anti-Clerics - Part 3

As you may have noticed, there is no accurate description of the Anti-cleric in OD&D. Or rather, a description in the negative: (s)he does not launch the classic versions of reversible clerics spells, (s)he does not repel the undead etc.

This is even better for you! You have full latitude to develop your own Anti-cleric class... Let the creative juices flow! 

Nevertheless, this is a possible vision of the Anti-cleric for OD&D that I designed so that it can be perfectly integrated to the original rules, just between clerics and dwarves in Men & Magic. 

Anti-clerics :  

Anti-clerics are evil alter-ego of clerics of the Law. They are always Chaotic. Organized in hierarchical cults, they worship various demons and can use all the weapons. When Anti-clerics reached the top level (High Evil Priest), they may opt to build their own stronghold, and when doing so receive help from "above". Thus, if they spend 100,000 Gold Pieces in castle construction, they may build a fortress of double that cost. Finally, "faithful" men will come to such a castle, being fanatically loyal, and they will serve at no cost. They will be 30-300 Brigands. Anti-clerics with castles of their own will have control of a territory similar to the "Barony" of fighters, and they will receive "tithes" equal to 20 Gold Pieces/Inhabitant/year. 

Charisma is the prime requisite for Anti-clerics. They can use strength on a 3 for 1 basis (and wisdom on a 2 for 1 basis) in their prime requisite area, for purposes of gaining experience only.  

Anti-clerics

0         Evil Acolyte
1250   Evil Adept
2500   Shaman
5000   Evil Priest
10000 Evil Curate
20000 Evil Bishop
40000 Evil Lama
80000 Evil High Priest 

Anti-clerics fight and save as Clerics. Anti-clerics use spell books as Clerics and Magic-users.  They use the Clerics spell list but Clerical spells underlined on the table for Cleric Spells have a reverse effect, all others functioning as noted. The chief exception is the Raise Dead spell which becomes:
The Finger of Death: Instead of raising the dead, this spell creates a "death ray" which will kill any creature unless a saving throw is made (where applicable). Range: 12". 

Demon summonning [for optional use as part of Supplement III]: Anti-clerics can conjure and/or control a demon whose true name they discovered in their treaties of demonology. Anti-clerics roll 2d6 on the following table to determine the success of their attempt (possible negative modifiers, positive modifiers depending on special magic items):

Demon  |	Shaman |	Evil Priest |	Evil Curate |	Evil Bishop |	Evil Lama |	Evil High Priest
Type I	11	9	7	5	3	1
Type II	-	11	9	7	5	3
Type III	-	-	11	9	7	5
Type VI	-	-	-	11	9	7
Type V	-	-	-	-	11	9
Type VI	-	-	-	-	-	11

If the roll is successful, the demon is under control (as the effect of a charm) for 2d6 days x anti-cleric level. The dice roll must be kept secret. Once this time has elapsed, the demon is free to do what it wants (like disembowelling the anti-cleric) for a number of rounds equal to its type. After that, it returns to where it came from. If the roll is unsuccesful, the demon is free to do what it wants (like disembowelling the anti-cleric) for a number of rounds equal to its type. After that, it returns to where it came from. Artifacts may allow the summoning of demon princes.
 

Clerics & Anti-clerics - Part 2

So, as I have said in my previous post, here is the summary of what OD&D suggests (more or less explicitly) on clerics and anti-clerics. 

Clerics : 
Clerics are part of a esoteric and military (1C) religious order (perhaps proselyte (6B)) characterized by its study of religious texts (2) enabling them to understand better the creation and get spiritually closer to their unique god. This exegesis of sacred texts gives them powers inaccessible to the profane (5). It's an hermetic society in which clerics progress through successive stages from acolyte unable to use the divine power (because she has to prove her worth) to the patriarch who guide the religious order and leads the Crusades, via the Lama doctor of the Law and the Bishop sent to the Wilderness to conquer his domain by the strength of his arm and the purity of his faith (2).

But as in any religion, strife await because of different interpretations of the Book : Any cleric who rises in the hierarchy of knowledge must eventually choose sides (1A) between the mainstream (the Law) which gathers most patriarchs and the deviant interpretations described as heretical (the Chaos). These are parallel orders* of Chaotic clerics (6A) more or less rejected by the Church of the Law, each led by a different (Chaotic) patriarch named heresiarch (7) which gathers also holy warriors (1C) and fight the undead too (4). Rather than building a fortress, they lead a nomadic life in as missionaries (7).


*for example : blog In Places Deep.

Anti-clerics :
Anti-clerics are always Chaotic and evil (3). They are satanists* who worship many demons that are the source of their powers, counterfeiting the hierarchy of the Church of the Law (3). Evil High Priests also build strongholds for their respective cults (1) and are particularly civil with travelers who stop in their castle and pay their required tithes (6A).

*porphyre77 rightly pointed out that the pagan role was filled by Druids.

Any comment, guys?

Clerics & Anti-clerics - Part 1

Image of World of Xoth, Thulsa's blog.

Since that I am directed to add the anti-clerics to E&S, I read entirely including three brown books and some messages from bloggers to give me a general idea of ​​how others treat it. And I am very dissatisfied.
Truce of additional considerations ! We should rather see my interpretation of OD&D. 

(1) "Clerics: [...] When Clerics reach the top level (Patriarch) they may opt to build their own stronghold, and when doing so receive help from "above". Thus, if they spend 100,000 Gold Pieces in castle construction, they may build a fortress of double that cost. Finally, "faithful" men will come to such a castle, being fanatically loyal, and they will serve at no cost. There will be from 10-60 heavy cavalry, 10-60 horsed crossbowmen ("Turcopole"-type), and 30-180 heavy foot. Note that Clerics of 7th level and greater are either "Law" or "Chaos", and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits changes sides, all the benefits will immediately be removed! Clerics with castles of their own will have control of a territory similar to the "Barony" of fighters, and they will receive "tithes" equal to 20 Gold Pieces/Inhabitant/year."

(2) Clerics:
1. Acolyte
2. Adept
3. Village Priest
4. Vicar
5. Curate
6. Bishop
7. Lama
8. Patriarch

(3) Anti-Clerics: 
1. Evil Acolyte, 
2. Evil Adept, 
3. Shaman, 
4. Evil Priest, 
5. Evil Curate, 
6. Evil Bishop, 
7. Evil Lama, 
8. Evil High Priest.

 -Men & Magic. 

(4)"A full explanation of each spell follows. Note that under lined Clerical spells are reversed by evil Clerics. Also, note the Clerics versus Undead Monsters table, indicating the strong effect of the various clerical levels upon the undead; however, evil Clerics do not have this effect, the entire effect being lost. Note: There are Anti-Clerics (listed below) who have similar powers to Clerics. Those Clerical spells underlined on the table for Cleric Spells have a reverse effect, all others functioning as noted. The chief exception is the Raise Dead spell which becomes:
The Finger of Death: Instead of raising the dead, this spell creates a "death ray" which will kill any creature unless a saving throw is made (where applicable). Range: 12". (A Cleric-type may use this spell in a life-or-death situation, but misuse will immediately turn him into an Anti-Cleric.)"

(5)"Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the
spells they can use, one book for each level."

-Men & Magic

(6) "Clerics will require passersby to give a tithe (10%) of all their money and jewels. If there is no payment possible the Cleric will send the adventurers on some form of Lawful or Chaotic task, under Quest. Generally Evil High Priests will simple attempt to slay Lawful or Neutral passersby who fail to pay their tithes."

(7) "Patriarchs are always Lawful, and Evil High Priests are always Chaotic. All other castle inhabitants will be either hostile to the adventurers (die 1-3) or neutral (die 4-6). "

-Underworld and Wilderness adventures

Let's briefly push the open doors : the cleric is a kind of Templar of a pseudo-Christian religion (orthodoxy is the most probable) progressing to status of patriarch (there may be several patriarchs, which can be a territorial division) and attracting at that time a bunch of fanatics in his castle. 

(1A) Neutral clerics must choose their side at level 7 : Law or Chaos. More on this later but keep in mind that alignment is a stance. 
(1B) Clerics receive "help from above"...  does it refers to his superiors or his divinity? Well, we don't know. But I would tend to promote the divinity as Patriarch is the highest grade that can be achieved. And it also allows you to add a little flavor (i.e. the fortress was built where the Patriarch had his mystical ecstasy. His Lord guided him to a chest full of gold buried between the large roots of a tamarind etc.).
(1C) "Turcopole-type" riders ?! This is a precision that has always intrigued me. Turcopoles were Eastern Christians mercenaries who fought for the military orders and the Byzantine army. This fits well with the OD&D cleric-templar, but I have two points : First they are Eastern. Well managed, they can bring an exotic touch to the setting with perhaps different interpretations of the sacred texts or other religious customs, which can sometimes lead to misunderstandings between them and the clergy. Second, one can notice that they are also gathered by Chaotic clerics. More on that later.

(2) Two obvious irregularities : Bishops who do not have castle/cathedral and Lamas. porphyre77 provided an excellent explanation for the first irregularity with bishops in partibus infidelium who wander in the Wilderness to establish or re-conquer their episcopate. For the second irregularity, snorri has rightly pointed out that Lamas are sort of the doctors of the Law (Darhma). More on this later. 

(3) Anti-clerics are Chaotic and evil. Note that they do not have an "evil village priest" nor "evil vicars". These guys are not found in the country and never make sermons in the village church. "Shaman" is an interesting title because it refers to paganism. Talisman calls Anti-Clerics heretics and heresiarchs and this is a nice point of view.

(4) No vade retro for evil clerics (which obviously refers to anti-clerics). Please note that the anti-clerics do not control the undead with the inverted vade-retro of the subsequent editions. By the way, I remind you that anti-clerics and clerics have only 13 spells in common (for information, the magic-users and clerics have 10 in common). The anti-cleric is truly a class apart from the cleric !

(5) Clerics HAVE spell books, as everyone seems to forget (the OD&D retro clone Delving Deeper and E&S are the only ones that I know which includes this rule). Clerics studying books of spells remind me strongly of Kabbalists and the like (hermeticism, gnosticism, mandaeism and manichaeism).

(6A) This paragraph seems oddly enough to distinguish between the Clerics (chaotic or lawful) that cast quests if not paid and Anti-Clerics who kills you if you do not pay them. This may be a drafting error or an unfortunate distinction, but remenber, any deviant interpretation is up for grabs.  
(6B) Another interesting point is that it seems that the Clerics or Anti-Clerics, if they are paid, are the most friendly castellans (even the Evil High Priests !) compared to the Lords and magicians.

(7) This passage invalidates a previous remark unless... there is not only patriarchs and evil high priests (which is indirectly refuted by the random table, but we can try to see where it takes us). More on this later.

The remarks are completed, part 2 will be a synthesis of this mess to see how it can be used in game. You may be a little surprised by my own interpretaion. 

Lawful Mind-flayers ?

Mind-flayers are truly a fascinating monster. Their diet of brains, their psionic powers, their cthulhoïd look... And their background (they practice slavery, particularly on githzerai and githyanki ; and

they are at war with the Dark elves). 

They are now firmly embedded in the D&D players' mind as the "bad guys". What if... it was a completely false assumption ? What Gygax had in mind when he created illithids ? 

"Law :
Mind flayer [...] highly evil but otherwise lawful."
-Gary Gygax in OD&D, Supplement III : Eldritch Wizardry. 

It could hardly be more confusing... 

I spoke about OD&D alignment in my last post.
It means that mind-flayers fight alongside the Law against Chaos (and possibly the Great Old Ones if they exist in your world. In mine, that's the case).

These creatures created by Gary Gygax appear only in one set of modules which had been writen by EGG : D1-2, Descent into the Dephts of the Earth. In D1, we learn that they are opposed to the dark elves (Chaos), have Were-rat servants (Chaos) and beholder allies (Chaos). Strange dating.

Lately, porphyre77 (a faithful commentator of this blog) rewrote the mind-flayer for Epées & Sorcellerie (we both work with snorri to realease the version 2 of E&S which is the first French retro-clone - I'd probably review it this week) and came with the following interpretation :

"Cette race souterraine à l'allure humanoïde possède une intelligence supra-humaine. Bien que loyaux, ils agissent d'une façon perçue en général comme maligne pour les races plus jeunes qui ignorent tout de leurs objectifs et façon de penser."
-porphyre77 in E&S v2.

"This subterranean humanoid race has superhuman intelligence. Although loyal, they act in a way generally regarded as malignant by younger races who know nothing about their goals and way of thinking."
-porphyre77 in E&S v2 (english translation).

That's brilliant !

Before interpreting the oddity, I must admit it made ​​me think of the Carcosa Space Aliens :

"SPACE ALIENS [Law]: Roughly human in shape and size, though unmistakably alien, these invaders from outer space have hairless, light gray bodies. They tend to be slender, and they have unblinking, bulbous eyes with black irises. Thousands of years ago, an armada of them made a hard landing on the planet of Carcosa. Since then, others of their race have come and gone while establishing bases on the planet—undoubtedly for some nefarious purposes. The Space Aliens possess a highly advanced technology, though they mostly lack such things as art, emotions, religion, philosophy, etc.
[...]

Law is the alignment of those who oppose the Great Old Ones. This opposition need not be (and is usually not) active. If, however, an Old One were to be released from imprisonment, those of lawful alignment would fight against it."

-Geoffrey McKinney, Supplement V : Carcosa (emphasis added).

So basically, we have two solutions (not necessarily exclusive) to handle the situation. Let me develop them to see where they lead :

• Mindflayers are geniuses without morality who plan ahead the downfall of Chaos. Their devious plans may include providing assistance to their Chaotic enemies or may even include attacking other Lawful races if it can help them to strengthen their position. This disregard of their natural allies can be explained by their excessive pride that drives them to make light of the inferior races little able to fight against the Chaos and meant to be their slaves. This attitude may also be explained by their paternalism towards other races that they educate by reducing them to slavery in order to "civilize" them. 
• Mindflayers are evil beings who oppose Chaos with a highly advanced science. Why are they fighting Chaos and the Great Old Ones that they resemble physically and mentally (they have great evil in common)? Nobody really knows. Maybe the mindflayers were previously a servant race of the Old Ones... They may have rebelled and now seek revenge. Or maybe they were the ones that the dawn of time, have imprisoned the fouls Old Ones because of a feud? Perhaps they are the immemorial Elder Ones!

 

Their high technology relies certainly on the minds they consume. Perhaps even navigators of their spaceships are giant brains with surnatural perceptions and terrifying mental powers immersed in vats of amniotic fluid... This is undoubtedly the reason why they enslave the inferior races: they need a lot of brain matter to create such horrors!