Gith's Sharp-Edged Codex

. . . then again. . .That describes how you use a sword when you're serious about things. Exebisions (there is no way I spelled that right...) and such (like anything out of Hollywood) tend to be much more showy. So maby the Githyanki are like that: Direct and to the point when things are serious (the afformentioned [...or that...] battle-speak), but otherwise loose, flowery, and loquasious (...or that...). That could set them appart from the 'zerai: "It's good to live a little." Ironic its the evil guys saying that.

The Codex would be serious, so it would be writen in the terse mode.

The 'yanki are chaotic, right? I don't have my books with me.

My second take was a collection of essays-type things writen on various issues. Once again, I never finished the first draft, but I got much farther that time.

The third take is what I got when I tried to strip my second take down to bare essentials. In the case of sections where I wasn't sure what the essentials were, this led to total nonsense. In the case of the other sections, it mearly led to near total nonsense.

My origenal concept was that, like the Circle, you could either open it or not. However, It could be that seekers are actualy required to roll a search check, with penalties for failure. For anything other than role play purposes, HP damage alone won't suffice, as damage is so easy to heal. But maybe the wounds can't be healed until the next section is successfully opend? Or maybe moral penalties.

Anyway, here's where I am right now:

Fist section: Introduction
(Search DC 12)

Second: Speach. This is now going to be about lifestyle (see above). Also action and inaction. As has been noted, the Flayers thought too much.
(Search DC 14/Dex 14)

Third: Life (of societies). War. A society survives by destroying all others. The Flayers didn't destroy others, they enslaved them. That's why they fell.
(Search DC 16/Dex/Int 16)

Fourth: First elaboration on Strength. Loyalty.
(Search DC 18/Dex/Int 18)

Fifth: Why the Queen's so great.
(Search DC 20/Dex/Int 20)

Sixth: Second elaboration on Strength. Either Leadership or comradery/cooperation, I haven't realy decided.
(Search DC 18/Dex/Int/Cha 18)

Seventh: Unity, which all the other things are a part off. This one is highly similar to the Eigth Circle, by design (it even repeats a phrase). This may date from before Two Skies.
(Search DC 20/Dex/Int/Cha/Wis 20)

Also, I won't be around for the next four days.

Tying up a few loose ends. This is from the previous thread, but was parhaps overlooked among the chaos. This addresses some of your concerns about the language, Darkness Elemental

*****************************************************
Making something that stands up to the Unbroken Circle is no small task. But perhaps you're making things too hard on yourself.

Remember that the githzerai are the ones who are known for being extremely brief and to the point. Githyanki are occasionally terse (i.e. commands in battle), but they also have a deep love for the elaborate in their craftsmanship and art. So one could expect something as special as the Codex to be much more wordy and flowery than the Unbroken Circle for this reason, perhaps being more of a narrative rather than a string blow-by-blow recounting of the events and their explicit meaning as we see in the Circle. Perhaps the primary mystery of the Codex is in how to distill the precise (and perhaps somewhat convoluted and complicated) philisophical ideas from the greater, less specific narrative structure. Basically, I would assume the Codex would be much *less* literal than the Circle for this reason.

In some ways, the nature of the Unbroken Circle also makes your task harder. Basically, the Unbroken Circle "used up" most of the relevant subject material, even that which seems to be a poor fit, leaving precious little room for a second parallel document. In my opinion, the whole focus on swords and the Scripture of Steel always seemed a little irrelevant to what the githzerai ultimately became. Mostly, it was just relevant to the shared history of the rebellion. To completely avoid overlap, you basically have to restrict yourself to the githyanki after the split, and there's very little info on what they were like at that point. We know a little bit about what they were before that, and what they were later, but not much in between.

However, I'd urge you to not to get discouraged. Consider that there is a whole lot of room for expansion here, lots of room for creativity. Even in Rhys' article, very little is said about the actual content of the Codex, so it's almost a blank canvas. Every artist knows that a blank canvas can be intimidating. Don't be afraid to be creative and add brand new angles, much like Rhys did. Provided that you can discover how and where you are deviating from previous materials, you can do so purposefully and strategically to open up new doors. And if it's unclear how well something fits with the source materials, just ask. There are any number of people in this forum who are familiar with the source material. As long as you stick to the *spirit* of the existing info on githyanki, you should be fine.
*****************************************************

Regarding the language: githyanki in 3E speak a language called gith (3E Expanded Psionics Handbook). According to the article in Dungeon 100, githyanki refuse to speak their language around non-githyanki -- leading to the very abbreviated battle commands called "sword-speak" which you mentioned above. Sword-speak is specifically used between military leaders and subordinates (GttAP, Planes of Chaos). Think of githyanki warriors using sword-speak in combat the same way that a swat team would use short commands and hand gestures to communicate with each other without giving their plans away. So one should not assume that githyanki would be using sword-speak for their own literature. Quite the contrary.

Please note that the planewalker.com article about sword-speak located here is fan content which contradicts the source material somewhat on this issue (or perhaps merely over-simplifies it). In this case, it's pretty clear that the article assumes that sword-spek is the entire githyanki language, but that is different from what is stated in 2E and 3E sources. Personally, I think the official explanation works well to include it all -- sword-speak is a combat-only language, and githyanki everyday speech is much more elaborate and baroque, like most aspects of githyanki society, culture, and technology. (Which of course brings us full circle to what you just described above!)

Also of note, from the Guide to the Astral Plane:
"Even drama, poetry and song are created by the githyanki, although these are so strange (often actually containing psionic elements or references to astral intricacies) that most nongithyanki are literally unable to comprehend them."

I'd once again encourage you to pick up the Guide to the Astral Plane online ($5) and Dungeon Magazine 100 (eBay). For about ten bucks, you'd have just about all the info on githyanki that you need with those two sources, since those two cover the githyanki in more depth than any other sources. GttAP has an entire chapter devoted to (2E) githyanki, and the Dungeon mag has an issue of Polyhedron bound with it that is entirely devoted to detailing the githyanki from the 3E perspective. If you're looking for inspirational material, these two have tons of it.

On the question of alignment, githyanki individuals tend towards chaotic, but their society (until the recent destruction of Vlaakith) is generally lawful.

I'd also like to add that the githyanki are a study in duality when it comes to combat: they believe in a strict hierarchy of command, but they treasure the uniqueness of the individual's skills. Again, law, chaos.

From Dungeon 100