Different Twist...

There's always been a little bit of muddling between the giths and their magic or psionics. I think nobody's been comfortable, in the past, with formally assigning such central races to psionics, a system which is not universally a part of the game.

The destruction of Vlaakith is outlined in a large module that appeared in Dungeon100. There's a summary of the events in this thread if you don't have the magazine: [url]/forum]

Yes, we all know this isn't what the books say. Kal is intentionally deviating from the published materials. He made it clear that all this is just an alternate idea that he is using for his campaign. That said, he's asking for thoughts and input regarding this purposefully-different idea. There's nothing wrong, of course, with citing examples where his ideas deviate from the published material. But I'm pretty confident from his posts that he is already well-informed about where his alternate idea deviates from the official approach, and that those deviations are intentional.

As far as the races being different, it depends on what you take as official. In 2E Planescape materials and in Dungeon 100, githyanki lay eggs. It is therefore doubtful that the githzerai and githyanki can interbreed. If one takes that at face value, then the two are not only different races -- they are biologically different species. In Dungeon 100, the duthka'gith (half-dragon, half-githyanki) play a key role, and githyanki egglaying is important to their practicality as a race. (I personally find the whole "githyanki laying eggs" thing pointless, but the Guide to the Astral Plane goes on about it at length.)

However, the 3E core books are silent on the topic. A very tiny reference in 3E Unearthed Arcana indicates that humans can interbreed with githyanki and githzerai. It's under the "Bloodlines" section. I'm not sure exactly how this works, whether there's magical intervention or whatnot. Personally, I suspect someone at WOTC simply didn't do their homework before writing this, but it is in there. So if that's your source, it is logical to assume that githyanki and githzerai can breed, and are the same 'species' as man, elves, etc.

The general references for the githyanki race (3.5MM, MMIV, Manual of the Planes, Psionics Handbook) say nothing about githyanki procreation. The 1E materials also did not explore the issue.

So in short, the official books don't come right out and say whether githyanki and githzerai are currently the same race or even the same species. It's open to interpretation.

Planewalker.com takes the egg-laying approach (and even expands on it) for the 3.5E Planescape conversion.
[url]/rrakkma/node/]
/downloads/products/files/chapter2.pdf

It is never explained exactly why the githyanki lay eggs. The Guide to the Astral Plane says that it is either due to illithid experiements or absorbtion of Astral energies. If the githzerai are not egg layers, and there seems to be no direct indication that they are, then the second explanation would be correct. Along with (magical) interbreeding with their egg-laying allies, the red dragons, ultimately leading to the duthka'gith.

But again, the 3E material seems to indicate a desire to get away from this inexplicable (and not terribly useful) weirdness. Dungeon 100 is the only 3E source to use egg-laying, and as mentioned above. Of course, since humans and dragons can magically interbreed already, there's no real need for githyanki to lay eggs at all, even to create duthka'gith.

I've dug up some conversations about this on various message boards, and the vast majority of DMs simply ignore the egg-laying thing as pointlessly weird. The best homebrewed explanation involves not eggs per se but more like external incubators necessary to avoid the difficulties with astral pregnancies. But that's all conjecture. (If you really want to bend your brain over it, explain why the githyanki woman in the MM has a belly button if she was laid from an egg!)

But, to get back to Kal's ideas, it's just not clear from the D&D sources whether githyanki and githzerai can breed (naturally). Even if they use the same method for procreation, that still doesn't mean they can interbreed. If they can't breed, they aren't one species, much less the same race. They did come from humans millenia ago, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their biology works the same now, after such a long time in the Astral and Limbo. There is some circumstantial evidence to indicate that their biology has deviated.

So to say unequivicably that they ARE one race at this point in time is, at best, guessing. As you say, feel free to use that in your campaign, but the source material doesn't seem to clarify this one way or the other. There is considerable leeway here for any DM to take it in the direction most suitable for his campaign, which perhaps is the only solution that will appeal to everybody.

There's been a lot of discussion about that. That contradicts all other sources. As others have pointed out, the MM and Planar Handbook refer to the gith rebellion happening "aeons" ago, and the 2000 year number contradicts the entire Githyanki royal line of succession: Vlaakith CLVII has ruled for 1000 years herself, and there were 156 before her. The general concensus is that 2000 years ago is simply an error. Perhaps the intention was to use 20,000 years instead, which would have been much more plausible.

The 2E material is fairly vague. The Guide to the Astral Plane just basically says the rebellion happened very far in the past. The Illithiad also mentions that the mindflayers had an empire at a time in the far past "when the outer planes were still in flux".

You can read more in these threads:

[url]/forum]
[url]/forum]

As far as I know, the only 3.5 book that mentions Sigil is the Planar Handbook, and I don't see the reference you mentioned there.

I think the most plausible explanation for githyanki eggs is that they've interbred with red dragons over the eons. All githyanki today have a small amount of red dragon blood (not just the duktha'gith), and their oviparous nature comes from that. Githzerai, then, do not lay eggs.

If illithids engineered the gith forerunners with egg-laying equipment, their eggs would likely be soft and shell-less like their own instead of leathery and reptilian, as githyanki eggs are described.

It's possible that originally they did lay amphibian-like eggs, but interbreeding with dragons caused the githyanki to gain their leathery shells. In that case, githzerai might have softer eggs.

However, I think it would be inappropriate for a race native to Limbo to lay eggs - the possibility of mutation is too great if unformed young are kept outside their mothers' bodies. Slaadi do it, but they only avoid excessive mutation by mating near the Spawning Stone, and they're still filled with frequent mutants. I don't think githzerai could survive as a coherent race unless they gave live birth. It's possible there were githzerai egg-layers in the past, but they've died out or become unrecognizable.

Yes, of course. I'm talking about what's likely, not what's explicitly stated.

No, I don't think it does. Githyanki have always been presented as significantly more reptilian than githzerai, and their connection with red dragons dates back to their first appearance. While the deliberate engineering of a race of crossbreed warriors is a new innovation of the Lich-Queen's, the idea that there's been more limited congress between the two species over the eons doesn't deviate from prior material in the slightest, and in fact makes it cohere better, at least in my opinion.

And this might well have been true. Certainly, there's a good argument that illithids altered their slaves to become egg-layers for their own convenience (their slaves wouldn't be hampered so much by pregnancy or attatchment to their young, and illithids know better how to incubate eggs).

I think there's a strong possibility that they were initially engineered to lay gelatinous illithid-like eggs by their masters, and later began to evolve to become more reptilian.

As A Guide to the Astral Plane said, "This method if reproduction closely resembles that of reptilian creatures." Since there's nothing inherently reptilian about the Astral Plane, and illithids have no affinity with reptiles, that points to the idea that another factor was involved.

What could that factor have been? A variety of things. Possibly it was some kind of side-effect of the pact with Ephelomon, or even a manifestation of the strong racial belief that githyanki have that they had become siblings of their draconic allies. Astral energies could well have played a part in causing githyanki to more closely resemble what they saw themselves as inside.

Yes, definitely so! I would never reduce their evolution to being only the result of crossbreeding. Githyanki are certainly not just dragontouched humans.

I certainly wouldn't advocate ignoring anything out of hand. I'm just trying to explain a fairly massive hole in the timeline - exactly why do githyanki lay eggs, reptilian eggs at that? The official material doesn't explain this, so it's up to us to justify it for ourselves. My theory does so neatly without contradicting anything previously written.

Do you have an alternate explanation?

Yes, we've been through this. Remember a few posts ago when I said "I'm talking about what is likely, not what has been explicitly stated?" I think I made my angle pretty clear, and your lecture is neither needed nor appropriate.

And yet I haven't tried to argue facts; I have, however, waited patiently through your opinions on the Only Right Way to hold a conversation. Your habit of trying to viciously shoot down any idea that doesn't meet your standards is counterproductive, to say the least.

This is the second thread you've turned into ugliness. Normally, in these forums, we talk to one another with respect, and if we disagree with one another we do so with respect. You seem incapable of doing this.

With literally eons of githyanki history, it would be surprising - no, impossible - if everything about it was known, even by the githyanki themselves, and certainly impossible for Monte Cook or others to describe even the most important parts of it.

Your requirement that something needs to be hinted at in official materials is ludicrous; the planes and their history are too staggeringly large to limit ourselves in such a stupid way. Nothing I've suggested in this thread contradicts anything previously published, and that ought to be enough for the greatest canon-stickler.

If there are any outright contradictions, I'd like to see you point them out. Since you haven't bothered, I'll assume there aren't any.

Again, you've stooped to questioning my integrity. And so quickly! Can you honestly admit that there's nothing that says the githyanki haven't mated with dragons in the ancient past? You don't have to like my ideas, but I'd appreciate it if you wait at least until the second page before calling me a liar.

ripvanwormer:

No one has called you anything, and no one has personally attacked you. What has happened here is that you have said that your personal supplemental ideas to Planscape are more valid than the Planescape source materials (something you have done in several other previous threads), and you have become offended when I questioned the validity of that approach. Regardless of your attempts to make this personal, all I have done here is calmly pointed out that your theory does not actually have any supporting evidence whatsoever in any of the source material. You seem very uncomfortable admitting that fact and factoring it into the discussion, and that undermines your argument. It is quite appropriate to discuss the flaws in your argument due to the fact that it deviates so drastically from the Planescape material. I think most rational people would prefer documented ideas rather than ones made up whole cloth like the one you have put forward here. If githyanki have red dragon blood, that fact is important enough to have been mentioned somewhere in the dozens of published sources about the githyanki. It hasn't been, not even in sections of the materials that detail the relationship between githyanki and red dragon. That omission is highly noteworthy, whether or not you are willing to acknowledge that fact. And ultimately, that omission is a fatal flaw in your theory.

Your theory simply has not one shred of direct evidence in the source material. There's no avoiding it.

The Guide to the Astral Plane says very clearly: "The most pronounced deviation of the githyanki from their human origins is that they have become egg-layers. This is either the result of some experiment of the illithids or the exposure to some strange astral energies."

The logical construct used here is "Either A is true, or B is true". You have posited that A is false, B is false, and C is true. I'm sorry, but that's not an option here. You may not LIKE what it says, but that's what it says. You can complain to Monte Cook if you don't like it. But please don't act like I'm doing something unfair by simply quoting the source material word for word, and pointing out that it leaves no room for your pet theory.

Feel free to continue to speculate about any bizarre alternate theories you dream up. As I've stated repeatedly, I think brainstorming can lead to great concepts. However, very few of those who speculate far afield from published source material would obstinately insist that their wild speculations are more reliable than the source material, as you have done here. Most such people are glad to admit that the further they get away from the published material, the less solid a foundation they have for their speculations, and that is a reasonable position to take. Thankfully, you do not suffer from such uncertainties.

If you're going to continue to ignore, disregard, or deemphasize the Planescape source material in your speculations, I'm afraid you'll have to get used to me (and others) pointing it out. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, when sifting through the existing material and updating it for 3.5E, to point out which ideas are expansions of existing ideas, and which ones are brand spanking new. If that makes you uncomfortable, I really am truly sorry. That's the nature of open discussions, and not everything you post is going to stand up to analysis.

I'm holding my own copy of WD #12 in my hands as I write this. It normally sits on the shelf above me, alongside a copy of every single source mentioned in my list of githyanki published sources. I've read each of them several times.

Now what were you saying about my ability to demonstrate that there is no reference in these books to githyanki and dragons interbreeding? Wanna bet?

First appearance that most people are likely to own, I should have said. Stop being such a pedant.

I didn't say anything about that. I was talking about your ability to demonstrate that there is a reference to githyanki and dragons not interbreeding. This would be important to find if you wanted to support your contention that the idea contradicts previous sources. Finding no reference discussing the subject at all contradicts nothing.

Where there's uncertainty, there's always room for debate. If we don't know whether or not the illithids or the astral plane did it, then we don't know if there's more to it or not. I'm not claiming the illithids didn't alter their reproduction system, or that astral energies didn't do it. I'm only suggesting that the specific form their eggs take today - as well as other qualities - suggests an additional wrinkle.

If people are going to start arguing that nothing can be added to the perfection that is published Planescape, I think you're in the wrong forum.

I also think a bit too much is being made of the phrasing in A Guide to the Astral Plane. The book isn't a computer program that relies on Boolean logic; the point is that we don't know why don't know why githyanki lay eggs. If we don't know, then we can't know that it's definitely one of those two. Those were the two possibilities Monte could think of at the time; it doesn't mean they're the only two possibilities.

Because githyanki culture can change over the course of eons and eons of history. Who they hate today tells us little about who they hated at the beginning of their species.

An interesting point. That could well be true, although I'm not certain it's a bad thing.

Although, one idea I had was that there's a subrace of githzerai whose favored class is wizard (or psion) and who have ability scores more like the 2nd edition version. In truth, they were githyanki, long ago, who defected to the githzerai side so long ago they might not even remember it. Other githzerai accept them as being of their race, though they might be egg-layers. Some things are more important than biology.

Next thing: I'd disagree that Githyanki threw off their psionic ability. Only I can say , that to Githyanki magic is like a sword and psionics like second name [expecially if you consider thier language - abbreviations aided with telepathy transmitting 'deep' meaning].

I'd have to agree with you about the psionics, heheh. Githyanki are fundamentally a psionics-based humanoid race, built around how psionics would shape them and their culture. If anything, I'd make the githzerai avoid psionics in favor of magic.

However, as Rhys correctly mentions above, this does limit the appeal of the githyanki, as many "hardcore" players and DMs don't use the optional psionics rules. And there is some justification in saying that psionics is really just an alternative magic system at its heart. Many of the results are basically identical.

If one wants, perhaps the two cultures will actually accept any profession because they want people to do as they please, this lets the PCs be any class they want. However, the githyanki see psionics as their natural gift that freed them from the illithids ala Gith. The Githzerai see psionics as a useful tool that they are all born with, but most would rather steer away from this gift because of the strong connection it has with their most hated foes, the illithids and the githyanki. This option allows a few more subtle cultural differences to show through without taking away from people's options.

After reading the preview, I'm not sure that's what I wanted to say... oh well. Any problems just point 'em out please.

I thought I handled that with aplomb, actually. Is this about the "pedant" remark? I don't want to get into an endless argument about the definition of "pedant" or the appropriateness of your correction, so I'll just apologize.

Of course I did. Nearly everything I post is made up. That is, or should be, completely irrelevant to whether or not it's a valid theory. I'm not trying to prove that Monte Cook thought githyanki had draconic blood; I'm just saying it, or one of the other theories I presented, makes a lot of sense.

Um, no. I just want you to scutinize it using relevant criteria. It should be obvious that speculation can go beyond what's hinted at in the official products, given the scope and immensity of the setting.

Others have given some interesting criticisms - for example, the idea that keeping their reproductive systems identical would help the gith races reunite.

If I've actually contradicted something, sure - feel free to say so. But I'd thank you to skip the rants about how something I've said is insufficiently supported, which is frankly irrelevant.

I haven't. The only one who brought up "expanding on an existing idea" is you. All I've said is that my idea doesn't contradict previous canon. Rather than debating that, you've constructed a strawman that I think I'm writing something that is in some way official. I've never said that. You're completely off-base here; you're debating a person who doesn't exist, who never claimed the thing you're primarily arguing against.

I dealt with that. From my very first post to this thread, I included the possibility that the illithids had originally engineered them with amphibious eggs, and they only became more reptilian later.

That's not true, as I've been having extremely reasonable conversations with everyone in this thread but you, and no one has ever agreed with me on this. I don't care; I'm just throwing it out there, but I'd appreciate it if you critique me as everyone else does, civilly. With my 900+ posts in this forum (under this name and another), you're the only one here I've ever been substantially at odds with. You may have to accept that the problem isn't with me, at least not entirely.

I have not been rude! Both these contentious threads were perfectly amicable until you started accusing me of dishonesty in them, and even afterwards I've refrained from using any unpleasant words to describe you.

Oh, wait. I called you a pedant. I thought that was pretty mild. You've accused me of dishonesty twice now in this thread alone. I've been doing you the favor of assuming that you've made an honest mistake. An intelligent person should be able to realize that this happens, and doesn't automatically assume malicious foresight on those whose arguments we see flaws in.

Perhaps we both have. I know you seem to have little idea what I have or haven't said.

My first response to you in this thread was "I'm talking about what was likely, not what was explicitly stated." This, I was innocent enough to assume, would make it clear what I was trying to do. Somehow, it didn't stop you from going into the nastiest and most insulting rant about how I'm refusing to admit that my theory lacks supporting evidence.

Reread the thread. Do you see how it progresses from "Yes, of course" to "We've been through this" to "Stop being such a pedant?" In every post you've refused to admit that what I'm trying to do has nothing to do with what you're arguing against, desperately looking for some sign of moral weakness in my posts that you could exploit. Is it any wonder I got upset? In TSR supplements githyanki have been presented as reptilian in nature, both in their reproduction and their dragon allies. The debased mutant githyanki, the Athasian gith, are described as "a peculiar mixture of elf and reptile." That was my point, and sure, you've got me on White Dwarf #12, but in light of everything else it doesn't destroy the substance of my argument.

Are you seriously not aware of how much I've been bending over backwards to be polite to you? How much I've edited out in order to maintain the semblance of civility?

Ah, never mind. It's probably futile in both our cases. Both of us know what we really think about one another, whether we actually say it or not. Well, probably; I think you still haven't really attempted to see things from my point of view. I've reread this thread several times, now, and I haven't found any place where it looks like I was complaining about my idea being criticized - I only was trying to clear up what my intentions were, while your insistance that I was a thin-skinned, lying prick got more and more insistent.

Why would I care if you didn't like my githyanki-mating-with-dragons idea? It wasn't even the only theory I put out there; I suggested several other possibilities in subsequent posts, none of which you've deigned to comment on. I was just reminding you that it wasn't as incompatible with previous material as it may have seemed to you, at least not as I phrased it, as an addition to the illithid-engineering theory rather than as a replacement for it.

Do you see what I was saying now? Do you see how you've been grossly mistaken, how misplaced your arguments and insults really have been?

Do I get an apology?

While this is my belief, I think I erred in describing it as if it were my primary contention.

To better express myself: it's fine to say you don't like something I write, and if your reason for not liking it is that Monte Cook didn't think of it first, that's fine too. It wasn't my intention to take issue with that.

This is how an interesting discussion turned into a near-flame war. Again.

My first post gave some thoughts about gith eggs: I proposed a somewhat radical theory, and in the next paragraph I proposed a way in which it could be made to fit with one of the official theories, the one about illithid engineering. Then I spoke about githzerai eggs.

Invisig0th's response started out with a lecture about threadjacking, followed by deciding to ignore his own advice rather than starting a new thread (which I could have done as well, of course, but then again it wasn't my lecture). Then he noted that my theory wasn't supported in the "scraps" of information we already had about githyanki. So far, so good. I have no problems with that.

I responded politely, noting that it was talking about what I thought was probable, not what previous material had stated explicitly, but dissenting on whether or not it actually qualified as a "deviation" in the sense of a blatant contradiction. Perhaps the definition of "deviation" is the root of our disagreement? My contention is that a deviation short of a blatant contradiction isn't very important - in fact, deviation in the sense of an unexpected twist (as in the title of this thread) on our previous expectations is a very good thing, while to Invisig0th, he was making a "pretty important observation." While this is a fundamental difference of opinions, it doesn't require one party to accuse the other of dishonesty. And yet in his next post, Invisg0th accused me of being unwilling to "honestly admit the idea severely deviates from what is stated in the source material," implying that there was some objective standard of a "severe deviation" that I was perfectly well aware of, but refused to acknowledge because of a moral failure on my part, that I was "dancing and dodging" because, despite his having only talked to me in two threads, he was certain I was the sort of person who couldn't take criticism.

My reply was fairly cordial for most of it, but I critized him for playing the moral card so quickly. I also, in response to his use of terms like "ridiculous," I said that limiting ourselves to things that had at least been hinted at in the "scraps" of sources we had was "stupid." Fair, I think. But the debate had already turned ugly.

In his next response, Invisig0th said that he hadn't actually "called me anything," and he claimed that I said that my personal ideas were more valid than those of the original game designers. Any casual browse through this thread will show I didn't claim anything of the sort, and it sure looks to me like he was calling me a liar. Then he informed me that it was his questioning of the validity of my nonexistant approach that I was offended by, and not the thing that I actually said I was offended by. He proceded to psychoanalyze me further, based on his assumptions about my character and on things I never said at all.

That's the set-up; I don't think I need to illustrate how the discussion degenerated from there.

Now he claims he's been extremely patient and tolerant with me. I'm sure this is true, especially considering what a dissembling ass he honestly believes me to have been, but from my perspective he's been intolerably rude, using dubious (and, as it happens, incorrect) logic and little evidence to subject me to armchair psychoanalysis of the lowest kind. Is it rude to tell someone who has been lying to you that they've been less than honest? Yes, it is, and it's sure to turn the discussion into an ugly one, but it's perhaps excusable if it's a given that this is in fact the truth. Is it rude to assume that someone has been dissembling when you don't know for sure? What if you think you're sure? Yes, it is. It's neither patient nor tolerant, and it's inadvisable to do that in a thread you want to keep a friendly tone in. Whether I'm a filthy liar or not, Invisig0th is the one who's turned a friendly exchange into a hostile one.

In the non-hypothetical world, I admitted freely what was or wasn't in the published sources, but I specifically formulated my theory in order to make sure that any deviation was less than severe. Apparently unaware of this, Invisg0th decided to make the thread about my personal character. This is where flame wars come from, at least in cases where people are less patient than I've been.

Now, I've made the same sorts of mistakes on other forums, turning a disagreement on some esoteric issue or other into a moral crusade and even making assumptions about people's motives. Believe me, Invisig0th, I've been there. But I've learned it's a good idea not to go there; you end up with silly arguments like this one, where both parties are busy defending their honor and not talking about what you came to these forums to talk about. No matter how vile and hypocritical your debator is, you don't have to bring it up, and you might even have been wrong about the person anyway. I may have even done it in this thread, a little bit, and if I have I apologize. It's a horrible situation; while I've been there, my advice is not to go there anymore.

I'm asking you one final time to let it go. You're never going to "prove" that you are right here, and you certainly aren't going to force anyone on this board to apologize to you by flooding the board. Even you cannot possibly think that continuing this "discussion" is a positive contribution.

Let me also remind you that terms like "pr*ck" are violations of the forum rules.

Show some respect to the rest of the people who would like to use this thread for it's intended purpose. If you can't control yourself, I will be forced to report you to the forum moderators.

[url]/forum]

If you have questions about exactly what does and does not violate the forum rules, I'd suggest you discuss that with Clueless. Whether your language (and general conduct) are appropriate is ultimately, of course, up to her to decide.

*slow foot tap*

I've got quite a bit of patience (years of admining for a MUD and working Help Desk will do that t' ya) and neither of you have gotten to the point where your commentary is entirely useless, flaming, baiting or otherwise going to rain on my parade as a mod. But you've come darned close to making this thread about *your arguement* and not about the subject at hand.

It seems part of the passion comes from a misinterpretation of what the forums here are for. It seems somehow the impression got around that the forums are for the express and only purpose of creating semi-official material for the PSCS? Is that right? Is that the root of this? If so - don't misinterpret what you are doing here on the forums.

Not all of the material discussed on the forums is meant to be part of the PSCS or Planewalker's downloads of Planescape in 3.5. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of it isn't. And the vast majority of the website itself isn't either for that matter. There's no reason to get upset if that's where the passion for this arguement comes from - the forums are a place to generate ideas that's all, not a place where only the 'correct' ideas get generated. The more conversation and ideas, wild or not, get generated the more likely we are to hit on something spectacular in the process that we can use.

Some of what comes up may be utter crud or delightful, some may fit with previous material or not. Some of it may be to your taste, some may not. Some of it may be to the taste of the editors of the PSCS - some may not. And the stuff that's not is still perfectly valid on the forums. And that's ok - really it is - that's the point of a community discussion like this. We're supposedly all friends - or at least friendly - here. That's what we're supposed to be aiming for, right?

This is a forum for speculation and creativity - it's going to happen. Deal.

You two can easily disagree without making it personal. Please don't. If anything, offer suggestions and modifications to each other's posts. Or don't reply at all to them. But don't start tossing out things you know are going to provoke an offensed response from another and then act innocent afterwards. I'm not stupid. I can see it when it happens.

If you are about to write something that calls a judgement on someone else's person, honor, or existance as a human being - that's when you need to stop and think about what you're doing - you're probably taking it too personally and you're trying to 'win'. You're probably also going to offend the other, and they'll stop listening to what you have to say - just a few misplaced words like that prevents you from persuading them to your side. That's why we don't do it. Keep your goals in mind when you post.

Please take note - I read these threads and will make my own judgement on who 'started' it assumind someone even did, where it came from, and deal with it with an eye towards the health of the community over all in the long run. Take that as ye wish - but I'd like to be able to keep both of you around. You both have valid ideas and speculations as well as handy access to resources and willingness to cite your grounding in the canon material. You both tend to contribute intellegently to debates, even when you're on opposite sides. You're both equals and neither of you has a right to tell the other that they can't contribute to projects, conversation or forums. That's a right reserved to a short list of folks - namely - me.

Just stop going off into the rough with it, keep it on the green so to speak. I know I can't fix the emotions both of you probably feel about each other, or the instinctive rejection each other's ideas may provoke because of those emotions. I wish I could, but my psionic power hasn't developed that far yet. All I can ask is that when you read each other's posts, ask yourself if you would have the same response if it had another name attached to it as a poster - if the answer is no, reread it - it might be more valid than you thought at first.

Sadly enough I had an opinion on the logical use of canon material in defense or rebuke of fan contributed material since we have to do quite a bit of that for the PSCS - but now I can't post it without picking a side. That this topic *got* that confrontational that I can't ethically post in it anymore is when things went wrong...

PS: "Prick" was self descriptive in this case, not intended as direct insult so not a flame, so I'm not coming down on it. Please don't attempt to interpret my job for me - that's stepping on my toes as mod and to be perfectly honest, it leaves a bad impression.