Do different minds taste differently to Flayers?

Presumably and probably not.

>>50502913
A little less specific than that, probably, but the quality of information stored within a victims mind probably does make some minds more palatable than others. Imagine, if you would, what your average frog and/or bane poster must taste like to an illithid. It's probably like showing up to eat a roast ham and getting a tin of anchovies instead.

>squidface eats some anon's mind
>becomes an expert on tile laying and the topography of Ohio

>>50502913
Yes. This is used as the explanation for why they don't simply breed human slaves for consumption, rather than capturing and eating them. A slave's mind is dull and without substance, suitable only for maintaining the bare necessities of existence if no other food is available.

An adventurer's mind is full of sights and sounds and knowledge and experiences, making it rich and sustaining.

To your second point: yes and no, respectively. Flayers can pick through the memories of their food, but all Flayers are born emotionless and learn of emotions from psionicly resonant stones build by other Flayers. As a result, since no stones of Love, Compassion, Disgust, and some other emotions exist, no Flayers can experience or comprehend those feelings. Memories of such from the minds of their prey wash over them like flavors over a burned tongue, unnoticed.

>>50506274
I love mindflayers. Not only are their designs and civilizations some of the most interesting around, but they literally can't be turned to smut. Anybody who does shows a complete disregard for the source material and can be ignored for the tedious cretins they are.

>>50506751
I love mind flayers too. They're a classic monster with some really unique lore that makes them stand out from other 'sinister lurking menace,' plus they make for pretty cool tactical encounters as well as campaign hooks, and their associated smut is all great

>>50505758
Underrated post.

File: Artist is Incase you get no more than that.jpg (72KB, 761x414px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 761x414px

>>50506751
I mean you say that but,

>smut
>caring about source material