Do Githzerai lay eggs?

[Dagger75]

I never heard of this either. Non egg layers here. What book is that from?

 

[palleomortis]

In all, I would say make it whatever fits your campaign best. thats the fun of being the DM.

 

[Erik Mona]

We had to tackle this for "Incursion" a few years back. Apparently, githyanki _are_ egg layers, but I can't vouch for the pedigree of the original source. All I know is that I can't ever imagine introducing githyanki eggs in any of my campaigns. Sometimes, a new spin on a monster doesn't "take" for me, and this would be one such case.

--Erik Mona

 

[MetalBard]

Maybe Githyanki and Githzerai could be like pythons and boas (two similar types of animals with weird little differences) in the real world. Like Githyanki, pythons lay eggs, but boas (which could be like Githzerai) give birth to live young in transparent amniotic sacs (not sure of the actual term for them). Could be kind of cool, Githzerai being a sort of diverged evolution from Githyanki (much like how pythons are an "older" form of snake than boas).

 

[S'mon]

Not in my campaign. Neither do githyanki. They are a species arisen from humans, per the 1e FF.

Yup, me too. Since they're basically human it'd be really stupid if they laid eggs...

I do have my (mammalian, doglike, non-draconic, 1e-style) kobolds lay eggs though... I think of them as platypus-like.

 

[Voadam]

They've been laying eggs for over a decade or so.

And what you said hasn't changed in the grand scheme of things. But the rather skimpy 1e details on both races were expanded in Planescape in the Planescape Monstrous Compendium I, 'Guide to the Astral', and 'Planes of Chaos' to a lesser extent.

Cool, I got the planes of chaos esd a while ago but haven't gone over it in depth, I will check it out sometime.

 

[wingsandsword]

Hmm, well, then count me in as someone who is ignoring the whole "laying eggs" thing. As far as I'm concerned, the Githyanki and Githzerai are a human subrace, and give birth live. Although the idea of Githzerai laying eggs may come up if my game goes planar again, as a nice "clueless berk" bit, right before a Githzerai kicks someone in the head for thinking it.

It's like the bit in 2e that Mummies are undead powered by Positive Energy instead of negative and that mummy rot was an infestation of too much positive energy, it just made absolutely no sense so everybody I knew ignored it.

 

[Rhialto]

I do have my (mammalian, doglike, non-draconic, 1e-style) kobolds lay eggs though... I think of them as platypus-like.

Except 1e explicitily stated kobolds had scales...

 

[Shemeska]

It's like the bit in 2e that Mummies are undead powered by Positive Energy instead of negative and that mummy rot was an infestation of too much positive energy, it just made absolutely no sense so everybody I knew ignored it.

*boggle*

Where the heck was that at? I've never seen that in any of the 2e stuff I've read (and I'm probably spoiled in only having gone back to look at the best of that edition) and any undead I've ever used, be they evil, neutral, or good are still a product of negative energy.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I do have my (mammalian, doglike, non-draconic, 1e-style) kobolds lay eggs though... I think of them as platypus-like.

Kobolds with poison claws would be really freaking cool.