Have Githzerai always been jerks?

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
the dividing line isn't on either side, though... so you're saying it's between the good & the bad? True Neutral? Kinda a yin-yang, thang, huh?
HA! No, OA and everything before it = good.

UA and everything after it = bad.

Therefore, and bear with me now, November 1985 was the death of D&D. Everything since then has just been a terrible hellscape that we have been wondering through, like zombies in a post-apocalpytic setting.
 
HA! No, OA and everything before it = good.
It's not just OA that I can't get behind on that one, it's also FF (and the Gith are not a tiny part of that, but so far from being alone... a list of goofy monsters would re-print the FF) and, though it's not fair of me, L&L (because I find backing off from copyright infringement sad, somehow, IDK, not very good-citizenship of me.)

UA and everything after it = bad.
Can't muster many arguments to counter that. I heard some folks liked Manual of the Planes? Yeah, Unearthed Arcana was a flaming dumpster fire. So was OA (though, as an Oriental Dumpster, or gomi-xiāng, it did the next larger die type of fire damage than a flaming western dumpster - and had Ki powers). Plus, didn't you notice that UA and OA are the only 1e D&D books whose initials are both dual-vowels. That's gotta mean something...

Therefore, and bear with me now, November 1985 was the death of D&D. Everything since then has just been a terrible hellscape that we have been wondering through, like zombies in a post-apocalpytic setting.
Nothing was actually published in Nov '85, though. So, what, was their a secret coup at TSR or something that month?
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Nothing was actually published in Nov '85, though. So, what, was their a secret coup at TSR or something that month?
If it wasn't secret, then you'd know about it.

ARGUE WITH THAT LOGIC!

This new theory, by the way, is so important it deserves it own thread. Working on it now. ;)
 

jgsugden

Explorer
I wish they'd separate lore from mechanics. Changing the mechanic does not require you to revamp the lore.

Always jerks. Just slightly differently implemented jerks in the old days.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
I wish they'd separate lore from mechanics. Changing the mechanic does not require you to revamp the lore.

Always jerks. Just slightly differently implemented jerks in the old days.
It's interesting, because I never really got around to answering the original question posed.

I s'pose you could say that they are always jerks. I mean, they ARE CN.

But the actual material in 1e didn't make them that jerk-y; it was vague enough (and they were interesting enough) that when I had an 80s campaign with them in it, I played them as occasionally helpful, but aloof- not jerky. I think because they were hated by the evil Kuo Toa and Githyanki.

I think the real jerkiness came in during 2e?
 
Therefore, and bear with me now, November 1985 was the death of D&D. Everything since then has just been a terrible hellscape that we have been wondering through, like zombies in a post-apocalpytic setting.
Death of Advanced D&D, perhaps. Classic was good until the bitter end, and the altogether better line besides. I wish I'd appreciated it more before it was too late.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
You could, but D&D actually have a timeline, and every edition starts and ends with a major event that changes the shape of the settings as a whole. I think the Time of Troubles ended 1st edition and started 2nd. Vecna becoming a greater God ended 2nd edition and started 3rd. Mystra's death and the spell plague started 4th, and her resurrection started 5th.
I think you might be confusing the Forgotten Realms with D&D as a whole. Yes, FR did have events. But FR wasn't the default setting for any edition prior to 5th. There is no event mandated by an edition change across all settings or even that edition's default setting. The fact that FR decided to do it has to do with FR, not D&D as a whole.

4e's default setting was Nentir Vale / Points-of-Light. 3ed's was officially Greyhawk, which was pretty weakly coupled. Want to go back to pre AD&D you get Mystara.

Source: Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings - Wikipedia
 

neogod22

Explorer
I think you might be confusing the Forgotten Realms with D&D as a whole. Yes, FR did have events. But FR wasn't the default setting for any edition prior to 5th. There is no event mandated by an edition change across all settings or even that edition's default setting. The fact that FR decided to do it has to do with FR, not D&D as a whole.

4e's default setting was Nentir Vale / Points-of-Light. 3ed's was officially Greyhawk, which was pretty weakly coupled. Want to go back to pre AD&D you get Mystara.

Source: Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings - Wikipedia
I came back to D&D at the end of 4th. They were doing living FR at that point like they are doing now for 5th, so the default setting might've been different for 4th at the beginning, but they ended with FR. I consider the living world as the default because, that's what's getting updated, that's what the conventions run, and it's what AL runs.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
I came back to D&D at the end of 4th. They were doing living FR at that point like they are doing now for 5th, so the default setting might've been different for 4th at the beginning, but they ended with FR. I consider the living world as the default because, that's what's getting updated, that's what the conventions run, and it's what AL runs.
None of which changes the statement that D&D doesn't force any edition-changes onto settings. The fact that FR did it is true, but has nothing to do with D&D as a whole.

And regardless that you consider the living play world to be the "official" setting, the world official has a specific meaning which differs from that. Living play is just one facet of D&D play as a whole. Using a term incorrectly and then defending your point by trying to redefine the word does not make a strong supporting statement.
 
There is no event mandated by an edition change across all settings or even that edition's default setting. The fact that FR decided to do it has to do with FR, not D&D as a whole.
FR had major events happen 3e >4e and 4e>5e. Eberron and Dark Sun both changed between those two eds, didn't they? And, of course, 4e majorly re-wrote the entire Cosmology.

Changing the Gith - who have changed, some, with each ed - is pretty minor by comparison.

But, yeah, they've always been jerks.
 

neogod22

Explorer
None of which changes the statement that D&D doesn't force any edition-changes onto settings. The fact that FR did it is true, but has nothing to do with D&D as a whole.

And regardless that you consider the living play world to be the "official" setting, the world official has a specific meaning which differs from that. Living play is just one facet of D&D play as a whole. Using a term incorrectly and then defending your point by trying to redefine the word does not make a strong supporting statement.
Maybe I used the wrong word, but it still makes my point. What's yours?
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
Maybe I used the wrong word, but it still makes my point. What's yours?
Since your entire point hinged on FR being the "official" setting of various editions of D&D, misusing "official" pulls the entire supports out of your argument. FR was not, in fact, the official setting for any earlier edition of D&D.

Which leads to my point that D&D as a whole did not have an official campaign changing event for each new edition.

Is that clear enough?
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
FR had major events happen 3e >4e and 4e>5e. Eberron and Dark Sun both changed between those two eds, didn't they? And, of course, 4e majorly re-wrote the entire Cosmology.

Changing the Gith - who have changed, some, with each ed - is pretty minor by comparison.

But, yeah, they've always been jerks.
Oh I agree some campaign setting have changed. I wsa just calling out neogod22 that he insisted D&D had an official campaign change for each edition. Some settings like FR updated with each set of new rules, but not all.
 

neogod22

Explorer
Since your entire point hinged on FR being the "official" setting of various editions of D&D, misusing "official" pulls the entire supports out of your argument. FR was not, in fact, the official setting for any earlier edition of D&D.

Which leads to my point that D&D as a whole did not have an official campaign changing event for each new edition.

Is that clear enough?
So your point was to be right? Because you sound like you habe no point. You just want to argue just to argue. Well every edition since 3rd edition ended in a FR adventure leading to the next edition, so I'd say they're official. You can think whatever you want.
 

neogod22

Explorer
Oh I agree some campaign setting have changed. I wsa just calling out neogod22 that he insisted D&D had an official campaign change for each edition. Some settings like FR updated with each set of new rules, but not all.
Cool story bro
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
So your point was to be right? Because you sound like you habe no point.
Yeap, you "habe" me. Oh wait, my point was to correct the misinformation you were spreading. I won't call it lies - you were pretty clear that you were self-delusional in what was actually official. It was just wrong. As was the point you made based on what the "official" settings did for "every" edition of D&D.

It was a bit comical when you came back with your proof for every edition was just the change from tail-end of 4e to 5e. You did a great job of undermining your points so no one who reads the thread will accidentally mistake them for being correct.

Hasta la later.
 

Advertisement

Top