Do Githzerai lay eggs?

[Khayman]

Well, I didn't introduce the idea into my game until I used the Incursion Event (still a high point in the game, btw, thanks for that). My general feeling is that the Gith DO have eggs, but they are not eggs in the true biological sense, but are actually just incubators...external wombs, essentially, in which the placentas are implanted. Put another way, since the Githyanki spend most of their time on the Astral and are a warrior race who can't spare breeding females, the entire race is (or rather was until Vlaakith was slain) a race of test-tube babies. The test-tubes just happened to be enchanted eggs kept in secret creches about the Prime. The reason for them being eggs? They learned the technique (and possibly acquired some of the resources) from the red dragons.

Of course, since my party slew the Lich-Queen in "Lich Queen's Beloved", things have spiraled out of control for the Githyanki in my game. But that's another story.

See, that I'd buy.
Makes a weird sense given the weird flow of time in the Astral ; a pregnancy might last 1000 years anyway.

 

[James Jacobs]

If githyanki hatch from eggs... I'm not sure what the githyanki woman on page 128 of the Monster Manual is doing with a belly button. Maybe it's a scar? Or a dimple? Or some sort of extreme githyanki body art?

 

[Zjelani]

Unfortunately I don't have Guide to the Astral in front of me, but I believe the egg-laying aspect of the Githyanki was in direct consequence of living on the Astral. Like Khayman says, pregnancies would last unreasonably long (if they would really progress at all, I seem to think in 2e the Astral was timeless, but again, no book for exact reference). So, in order to actually be able to breed, they lay eggs on prime worlds. I don't think it was clear whether that modification came about while under illithid control or afterward.

Personally, I really like the more "incubator" idea mentioned below. Sounds like a cool adventure hook to me - adventurers stumbling on a chamber filled with little "githyanki pods". Plus the incubators would keep them still more mammlian, and even explain the belly button in the Monster Manual.

 

[Khayman]

D&D proudly features a number of mammalian reptiles, or reptilian mammals.

What? Medusae have teats??

Mmmm. Snake milk. I sense a really bad quest for the wizard's guild...

 

[Gez]

If githyanki hatch from eggs... I'm not sure what the githyanki woman on page 128 of the Monster Manual is doing with a belly button. Maybe it's a scar? Or a dimple? Or some sort of extreme githyanki body art?

Or just the result of an artist that can't help but draw belly buttons?

Look at classic paintings of Adam & Eva. They're supposed, in Judeo-Christian mythology, to have never been born, having been sculpted out of clay by God. Yet, in any depiction of our mythical ancestors, they'll have belly buttons, too.

I took them because they're usually depicted naked (except for a vine leaf), while other similarly created-fully formed mythological beings are often a bit more clad.

 

[kilamanjaro]

Without belly buttons, where would they store their lint?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Without belly buttons, where would they store their lint?

Lint material is recycled into eggshell material.

 

[the Jester]

If you're willing to accept that illithids could modify humans into egg layers, and if you play D&D you should be able to accept this, it makes some sense that they would. I imagine pregnant slaves would be less productive, especially if the 'yanki were a warrior slave caste.

First well-reasoned explanation for this weird phenomenon that I have heard or read. I could buy this basic reasoning.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I like the Incubator Theory. Consider it yoinked.

 

[Rhialto]

Or just the result of an artist that can't help but draw belly buttons?

Look at classic paintings of Adam & Eva. They're supposed, in Judeo-Christian mythology, to have never been born, having been sculpted out of clay by God. Yet, in any depiction of our mythical ancestors, they'll have belly buttons, too.

I took them because they're usually depicted naked (except for a vine leaf), while other similarly created-fully formed mythological beings are often a bit more clad.

Actually, the whole belly button issue was a theological hot topic for centuries, with some people arguing that God gave them navels because he wanted them to be perfect representations of the humans who were to follow. (After all, it is generally assumed he gave them hair, fingerprints, blood flowing in their veins...)

Thankfully, we've moved beyond such foolish theological discussions. For the most part. *Insert gratuitious joke about Kansas here.*