D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Heirs of Gith

[Shemeska]

Like Kobold Avenger said, by the time 3e got around to the githzerai they bizarrely ignored pretty much everything about them except the isolated monasteries. And since 3e monks were only Lawful, they altered the githzerai to fit. Yet those monasteries were outcasts from the bulk of githzerai society in 2e, either by their own decision or forced there by the githzerai wizard-king Zaerith Menyar Ag-Gith.

It was one of 3e's poorer decisions, and hopefully 5e might go back and return some of that richer detail.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The idea that having self-control and discipline must make you Lawful is a little grating. Githzerai are about freedom, about independence and self-responsibility. They pursue their individuality and their uniqueness, and believe that the best societies are individuals acting in concert, not rigid hierarchies. They are one of the many shades of Chaotic, not Lawful.

I'd be cool with any neutral as a compromise.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm wondering...could, "Monks must be Lawful" but "Githzerai are monks...and they're CN" be useful? Does it lend to the "alien-ness" of extraplanar creatures and the Gith, specifically, have always supposed to be about. OH MY GODS! They're monks..and they can be Chaotic Neutral Monks!?!? How's that possible?! Noone in the Prime material can do that!

Is that a bug or a feature?

 

[1of3]

Alignments are crap. Problem solved.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is that a bug or a feature?

Clearly a bug of the Monk class.

 

[Dausuul]

Eh. Lawful and Chaotic don't mean much of anything anyway. Does Lawful mean one is personally methodical and disciplined? Or does it mean one believes in subordinating individual interests to the needs of the group? Maybe it means devotion to a philosophical ideal of order. It could also mean a desire to establish and uphold laws and rules.

Every one of these (and their Chaotic equivalents) has at some point been used to justify why Creature X or Character Y is Lawful or Chaotic. Very often you can flip the creature's alignment just by using a different definition. 5E could do Dungeons and Dragons a great service by picking one definition of Lawful and Chaotic and sticking to it.

 

[Zaukrie]

I always thought the githyanki were romulans, and githzerai were vulcans. By nature chaotic, by culture lawful. One race, seperated by choice.

 

[Dausuul]

I always thought the githyanki were romulans, and githzerai were vulcans. By nature chaotic, by culture lawful. One race, seperated by choice.

IIRC, githyanki have generally been presented as neutral evil.

 

[gyor]

Non outsider, elemental, and undead should not have default alignments period. The Gith races are born with free will just like humans, Dwarves and Elves. Now societies are can alignments and impose those externally upon a being, but they should not be inherant. Also aren't the Gith races egg layers?

 

[Shemeska]

Non outsider, elemental, and undead should not have default alignments period. The Gith races are born with free will just like humans, Dwarves and Elves. Now societies are can alignments and impose those externally upon a being, but they should not be inherant. Also aren't the Gith races egg layers?

I know that githyanki in specific lay eggs. I don't recall about githzerai off the top of my head, but I don't think they are. I think it might be inferred as coming from the githyanki occasionally breeding with red dragons, and those halfbreeds mixing in with the overall genetic pool.