Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 03-03-07, 02:53 PM	I'm just wondering: are there any Kalashtar lineages which aren't very benevolent or well-meaning? Obviously, the quori spirit wouldn't be allied with the current establishment of Dal Quor or il-lashtavar, but what about a quori who fled Dal Quor with motivations other than trying to bring about the turning of the age? Maybe a quori spirit who was a criminal within Dal Quor for genuinely bad things it had done, who wanted to avoid being purged and reincarnated? Possibly just a quori who was sick of Dal Quor and wanted to be somewhere else? A quori who was a nobody on Dal Quor and thought that by going to Eberron it could become a big fish in a small pond (not incorrectly)? Maybe a quori who did want to bring about the turning of the age, but still isn't a very good spirit (a "Krozen-type" quori, genuinely dedicated to il-yannah, but not a good guy)? I'm not really looking for lineages of baby-eating sociopaths: just lineages that might have some selfish mercenaries and power-hungry politicians, some indifferent neutral types, some traditional kalashtar do-gooders, some arrogant, vain kalashtar bigots, etc. Of course, all kalashtar lineages might have some morally dubious members, but overall they're supposed to usually be lawful good types, so a Kalashtar that's not so good would require an explanation to explain why she's unusual. It might be easier to encompass a broader range of kalashtar characters if there were a lineage or two that doesn't exert much good moral influence on members, so they might have the same tendencies toward alignments as, say, humans.
Shady314 03-03-07, 03:40 PM	but overall they're supposed to usually be lawful good types, so a Kalashtar that's not so good would require an explanation to explain why she's unusual. Where do people get these ridiculous ideas? Alignment varies among kalashtar just as much as humans.
Belabras 03-03-07, 04:23 PM	I wouldn't go so far as to say any entire lineages are evil or malicious, but I think it's entirely possible for individuals or groups of Kalashtar to be so. Everything from 'ends justify the means' terrorist types to downright traitors wouldn't be out of the question - just make sure they either hang out with like minded kalashtar or are loners, as life in a society with so many telepathically gifted individuals is going to weed out the malcontents pretty quickly.
Edymnion 03-03-07, 07:31 PM	Surely, with a group of rebels like the Kalashtar Quori, there had to be a few that were a little grittier than the others. The Han Solo "fight dirty" type amongst all the Luke Skywalkers. Remember though, all of the Kalashtar Quori are basically the good aligned freedom loving types. You won't really find any of them that are evil.
AvonRekaes 03-03-07, 07:58 PM	I think the Harath spirit was said to be more of the grim warrior type. Most kalashtar of his lineage are shadowwalkers (if I recall correctly, that is). That being said, there are currently around 64 spirit lineages in Eberron, and not even 10 of them have been fleshed out. I think it's entirely reasonable to make up a few of your own, say a Hashalaq that was kowtowing to Taratai but was really in it for selfish reasons, any of the ones you stated above could work.
Sereno 03-05-07, 09:13 AM	The best way to account for an evil Kalashtar is to give him a backstory where he's not closely related to the rest of the Kalashtar society. Without the upbringing surrounded by his fellows, he doesn't know the meditative techniques necessary to keep his internal spirits in "alignment" ... he is confused or angered by the images he sometimes gets (the memories of his Quori spirit) and doesn't know how to handle them properly. He is ruthless and evil, following his own whims and desires and thinking he's being guided by the strange things his Quori spirit sometimes shows him.
Nived 03-05-07, 03:26 PM	I was under the impression that Kalashtar were individuals. Lineages might cause certain habits or traits and possibly even mannerisms to manifest... but ultimately a Kalashtar is his own person. There is a presence in the back of his mind sure... but its faint and doesn't control him in anyway. A set of Kalashtar brothers can be as different as night and day even though they have the same presence in the back of their minds. One can be a Lawful Good Kalashtar Psion who dedicates his life to shoving wrenches in the plans of the Dreaming Dark. His brother on the other hand is a CN Swashbuckler who uses his psionic abilities for little more than the Kesh and a few feats, he could care less about the Dreaming Dark or 'the cause'.
Cifer 03-05-07, 06:05 PM	Personally, I like the idea of a kalashtar (lineage?) with the same goals as the rest of them, but different means. The mourning? Well, Khorvaire was getting too static and weak with its war, so it had to end. What better means existed?
Siberys 03-06-07, 12:52 AM	IIRC, a great majority of Kalashtar-bound Quori are LG, and if a kalashtar's alignment differs significantly from that of his quori spirit, he'll be mildly insane, what with basically two consciences warring in his mind. Here's how I see it, for "Kalashtar Joe", with a LG quori spirit AL...basic sanity level LG...Perfectly fine LN or NG...Sanity in good condition. sometimes displays minor insanities, but nothing that stands out as "Odd" LE or CG...not wholly sane. some distinctly noticeable quirks NE or CN...Definitely mad, but not off-the-walls CE...stark raving loopy In other words, the farther his actual AL is from that of his Quori spirit, the more "out of tune" he is. Also, everything I've read of the quori was "freedom fighter material"; as a DM, I would not object to LG, LN, NG, or CG quori, but as all 'normal' quori were evil, I wouldn't allow LE or NE, and definitely not CE. N and CN quori for a kalashtar, though, would need a good explanation. I ramble too much...
Shady314 03-06-07, 07:45 AM	If only this setting had a sourcebook with information on the new races such as the kalashtar and/or a prestige class called the atavist that explains the weakened links kalashtar hold with their spirits. Oh that's right it does. Some of you really need to read it. Siberys don't you think don't you think some bizarre rule like that might have been mentioned somewhere in the ECS or RoE or ANYWHERE at all? Hey by the way DMs make sure your players know the original alignment of the quori they share a bond with. They may or may not be totally insane because of it! :rolleyes: Sadly in the real world and Eberron as well "freedom fighters" run the gamut from noble to a fancy name for terrorists. So do Kalashtar. There are evil kalashtar there is no reason to impose arbitrary restrictions on your players. The Kalashtar are not a race of saints. I can't think of a worse idea in Eberron than re-introducing alignment crap.
Belabras 03-06-07, 11:28 AM	Shady, he specifically pointed out in his post that it was how he specifically runs the Kalashtar. There's no reason to get all confrontational, it's not like he was saying everyone should do it that way.
Kid SixXx 03-06-07, 11:43 AM	Shady, he specifically pointed out in his post that it was how he specifically runs the Kalashtar. There's no reason to get all confrontational, it's not like he was saying everyone should do it that way. Yes, I was thinking that someone had Frosted Flakes this morning when they shoulda had oatmeal.
Siberys 03-06-07, 10:37 PM	I never said it was a rule, only guidelines. Also, though I'm afraid I don't have my books available ATM, I seem to recall a section in RoE on Kalashtar alignment. Something to the effect that because two minds inhabited the same body, if they held two substantially different Moral and/or Ethical views, insanity (literally) might ensue. If someone might track that down for me? EDIT: Also note how I specifically stated "Joe Kalashtar", or a very large majority, would have LG Quori spirits. I am in no way against Kalashtar's quori spirits being of different alignments; just note the fluff quite specifically states, IIRC, that MOST Quori rebels were LG.
Shady314 03-07-07, 05:03 AM	Shady, he specifically pointed out in his post that it was how he specifically runs the Kalashtar. There's no reason to get all confrontational, it's not like he was saying everyone should do it that way. Um no he didn't. I read it twice. I re read it again when you said this. Now I could be missing something. If so just point it out and I'll even apologize but he said IIRC-If I Recall Correctly not IMC-In My Campaign. Even if he was talking about a houserule I'll still have to say it's a bad one.
Siberys 03-07-07, 07:29 AM	Note 'IIRC' (paragraph one, showing my possibility to err) and 'As a DM' (paragraph 4, showing how it is done in my games).
Shady314 03-07-07, 02:05 PM	I never said it was a rule, only guidelines. Not any canonical guideline I'm aware of. Also, though I'm afraid I don't have my books available ATM, I seem to recall a section in RoE on Kalashtar alignment. Something to the effect that because two minds inhabited the same body, if they held two substantially different Moral and/or Ethical views, insanity (literally) might ensue. If someone might track that down for me? If that's true it's just another reason to hate the non-canonical RoE. Plus you took a vague character idea/musing (MIGHT) and made it a racewide certainty. As a character idea it's an interesting one. If a player wanted to play a character like that I'd think that was interesting but I'd never make them. EDIT: Also note how I specifically stated "Joe Kalashtar", or a very large majority, would have LG Quori spirits. I am in no way against Kalashtar's quori spirits being of different alignments; just note the fluff quite specifically states, IIRC, that MOST Quori rebels were LG. Right but you are literally forcing every Kalashtar of a specific lineage to be good or they MUST be insane. Then specifically said you'd never allow a player to be an evil kalashtar. That's bad. The Grey alignments of Eberron are good. Please show me where it specifically states in a canonical source aka NOT RoE that the Rebel Quori are mostly statted out as LG and that this allignment has a direct effect on the alignment of the Quori.
Shady314 03-07-07, 02:11 PM	Note 'IIRC' (paragraph one, showing my possibility to err) and 'As a DM' (paragraph 4, showing how it is done in my games). :confused: "IIRC" means this is the rules as I remember them and I may remember them incorrectly but you're not just remembering something incorrectly you're making it up from nothing. And "As a DM" doesn't mean "this is how I houserule it in my games" it's where you come down on a rules interpretation as a DM and the final decider of how things work in your campaign. If you meant to portray it as a houserule I apologize for the misunderstanding but you did NOT make it clear. Clear would have been "my personal interpretation/idea etc." or "IMC" or "The way I do it" or just something like that.
Siberys 03-07-07, 09:23 PM	Not any canonical guideline I'm aware of. If that's true it's just another reason to hate the non-canonical RoE. Plus you took a vague character idea/musing (MIGHT) and made it a racewide certainty. As a character idea it's an interesting one. If a player wanted to play a character like that I'd think that was interesting but I'd never make them. Do note, the Kalashtar section was written by Keith Baker, the guy who invented them. But as I said, I'm afraid it's impossible for me ATM, due to not having access to books due to circumstances beyond my control. But think about it - If you had two minds, or, more appropriately, two consciences, and each said opposing things about a large number of situations, would you not be mildly insane? and if they said two COMPLETELY different things, would you not be more than mildly insane? And no, I did not make it a race-wide certainty. I'm pretty sure it's almost a reality-wide certainty! If YOU had two opposing consciences would you not be insane? I know I would! And nor would I make them . I'd say - "What's your quori spirit like? Keep in mind, most are LG, and I doubt any are LE, much less any other evil. Explain the quori's ideology - since you were born with that spirit inhabiting you, you've probably developed an ideology very similar. If you somehow didn't, I'm sure you'd be insane, depending on how much it differed. Let me explain why - " and then explain what I've posted above. And "As a DM" doesn't mean [B] 1)"this is how I houserule it in my games" it's where you 2)come down on a rules interpretation as a DM and the final decider of how things work in your campaign. (bolds are my changes) 1) this is how I houserule it Or 2)this is how it is in my games Aren't those the same thing? Right but you are literally forcing every Kalashtar of a specific lineage to be good or they MUST be insane. Then specifically said you'd never allow a player to be an evil kalashtar. That's bad. The Grey alignments of Eberron are good. Not so much as completely insane as having greater levels of insanity as you get farther and farther from the Quori Spirit's. I said I'd never allow an evil QUORI SPIRIT. Why would they be rebelling? The Dreaming Dark would be furthering their ends. I'd allow an evil Kalashtar, so long as I was sure he'd know he'd very likely be mad, simply due to the LARGE MAJORITY of kalashtar's Quori spirits being LG, with some LN and various goods (though no Evils, I'm sure, and very few - if at all - Ns or CNs). Again, I direct you to the 'Two Consciences' argument. And I'd say Keith's writings on Kalashtar in ANY D&D book counts as canonical ;)
Zombomaniac 03-07-07, 11:14 PM	Siberys has my vote of support in this. The very idea of having two conflicting personalities in my head is beyond obvious insanity. If they get along alls good, but if one says "yes" and the other says "no" then you will be torn and sooner or later lose it. And yes if it was written by Keith (the man who made the race) then it is valid.
Siberys 03-07-07, 11:18 PM	And yes if it was written by Keith (the man who made the race) then it is valid. Still, as I don't have my books, I'm not sure of it. Just VERY confident :D
Shady314 03-08-07, 04:20 AM	Do note, the Kalashtar section was written by Keith Baker, the guy who invented them. But as I said, I'm afraid it's impossible for me ATM, due to not having access to books due to circumstances beyond my control. Was it? I know Keith was involved with it but not all of it. Otherwise we'd never have to read about how warforged don't have a sense of smell. But fine I can see I'm going to need to break out RoE and see exactly what it says. But think about it - If you had two minds, or, more appropriately, two consciences, and each said opposing things about a large number of situations, would you not be mildly insane? and if they said two COMPLETELY different things, would you not be more than mildly insane? YES! But this is not true of the Kalashtar! Joe Kalashtar does not share a second independent mind with Bob Quori! Since you appear to be a fan of RoE turn your attention (when you get your books) to page 58 Inner Balance. I quote "The mind of a kalashtar is a SYNTHESIS of human soul and quori spirit. The quori empowers the host but is NOT an INDEPENDENT PRESENCE. Now after this comes the part you seem hooked on. Where it is SUGGESTED the vast memories of the Quori host COULD UNBALANCE (this is described as not total insanity but a manic state) a Kalashtar since they lack the ability to dream but it's also suggested this is circumvented through focused meditation. Que the Path of Light! Later on page 59 under Spiritual Lineage "The quori founders no longer exist as true individuals, they live in the communal SUBCONSCIOUS of their descendants. Members of the lineage CANNOT ACTIVELY use this mental bond" Also I quote "Kalashtar with the same lineages are NOT mental clones. Each individuals life experience and human soul shape their character and personality." ALIGNMENT and behavior VARY from character to character." And this is written specifically in reference to kalashtar of the same lineage that "typically" share the same moral values. There is no second voice in their head. Quori Spirits do NOT = psicrystals. :rofl: Hey there's an idea. A Kalashtar with 3! voices in their head. And no, I did not make it a race-wide certainty. I'm pretty sure it's almost a reality-wide certainty! If YOU had two opposing consciences would you not be insane? I know I would! I believe I've just shown the fallacy of your argument. Two independent minds pulling at each other would cause mental friction. But Kalashtar do not suffer from this. And nor would I make them . I'd say - Right you'd just punish them for it. :rolleyes: "What's your quori spirit like? Sure but there's only 66 lineages. And they'll know every time they meet a member of any lineage they know whether he is evil or not. Keep in mind, most are LG, and I doubt any are LE, much less any other evil. You keep saying this like it's a fact. Personally I'd expect most to be LN for the same reasons as Taratai OR CN/CG they are rebels fighting authority after all. That's usually the province of the chaotic alignments. They did found a religion that is LN. Just for you I reread the ECS and RoE sections concerning Kalashtar and Quori though. Even though RoE isn't canonical. In neither book is this stated anywhere I can find. If Im missing it or it is in another book someone please show me. Seriously. Explain the quori's ideology - since you were born with that spirit inhabiting you, you've probably developed an ideology very similar. If you somehow didn't, I'm sure you'd be insane, depending on how much it differed. Let me explain why - " and then explain what I've posted above. Well as I explained RoE says there is similarity between lineages but nothing set in stone. Mostly because the quori spirits are NOT the sentient indpendent entities you think. And you didn't explain why. (bolds are my changes) 1) this is how I houserule it Or 2)this is how it is in my games Aren't those the same thing? Yes that is the same thing. Not the same thing I wrote but hey whatever. Hurray for editing. And if you had said either of those things there'd be no argument. Are you saying everything you're saying is a personal houserule? If so I'll stop arguing right now I thought we we're arguing RAW. Seriously. Not so much as completely insane as having greater levels of insanity as you get farther and farther from the Quori Spirit's. ???? You specifically said if you varied enough you'd be stark raving loopy. Maybe that means different things to us? I thought for sure that'd be completely insane. I said I'd never allow an evil [B]QUORI SPIRIT. Why would they be rebelling? Well SoS shows Taratai didn't rebel against the evil quori so much as she rebelled against the DD's desire to prevent the turning of the age which she saw as the natural order of things. That strikes me as more LN than LG. And indeed the religion the Kalashtar ended up forming is LN.... Odd that. The Dreaming Dark would be furthering their ends. I'd allow an evil Kalashtar, so long as I was sure he'd know he'd very likely be mad, simply due to the LARGE MAJORITY of kalashtar's Quori spirits being LG, with some LN and various goods (though no Evils, I'm sure, and very few - if at all - Ns or CNs). Again, I direct you to the 'Two Consciences' argument. Again I direct you to 1) Nowhere ANYWHERE is it printed the Quori rebels were the alignment LG and 2) actually bothered to check the book youre in love with that obliterates your argument. And I'd say Keith's writings on Kalashtar in ANY D&D book counts as canonical ;) Oh well if YOU say it. :rolleyes: I'm guessing you just don't know what canon IS. I get what you're saying though. You have much respect for the fine works of KB and so do I. I like a lot of RoE. Especially now that it has ended up backing ME up. ;) But I was simply referring to the fact RoE is a Races of... Book not an Eberron book. I know it's weird since it has the word Eberron in the title but it's just a fact. Unlike half of what you keep saying.
Sereno 03-08-07, 08:38 AM	Was it? I know Keith was involved with it but not all of it. Keith has stated on other threads that he was, indeed, the author of the Kalashtar chapter of RoE. As far as I understand it, Shady is right ... the Kalashtar *aren't* of two minds. For one thing, the Quori spirit is stretched thin ... spread out between all of the Kalashtar of their line. There's just not "enough" of the Quori to be an actual "voice" in the Kalashtar's head. However, I highly doubt that there's a Kalashtar line that's actually [evil] ... it doesn't make much sense that an evil Quori would have *wanted* to become separate from the DD.
Logos7 03-08-07, 08:58 AM	Their's always the Missing Quori ,If you want an Evil one for story purposes he gets loose and is evvvvivil As for the insanity bit, i saw iti more like a shared collected unconcious between the lines not a literal presence sitting in the back. More like the force and less like schizophrenia anyway just my interp Logos
Cifer 03-08-07, 10:20 AM	However, I highly doubt that there's a Kalashtar line that's actually [evil] ... it doesn't make much sense that an evil Quori would have *wanted* to become separate from the DD. Why? It's Eberron, so Good and Evil don't denote teams.
Sereno 03-08-07, 10:29 AM	Why? It's Eberron, so Good and Evil don't denote teams. However, it seems that the Quori *are* a team, moreso than any other "organization." Unlike the mortals, the Quori really seem to all be focused on one thing ... that's what makes the escape of the Kalashtar lineages especially important.
Omnirahk, half-Rahkshi 03-08-07, 02:12 PM	Where do people get these ridiculous ideas? Alignment varies among kalashtar just as much as humans. That would be because the legacy of kalashtar is a LG Quori. Each kalashtar has to deal with that quori acting as a second conscience. Kalashtar are officially just as capable of being less noble, but it takes more resolve.
JulesCARV 03-08-07, 03:43 PM	One idea: if there are LG quori even though most quori are LE, might there not be CE quori? Maybe a CE quori who murdered a different quori over some slight, frustration, or conflict, and then came running to Tarantai, lying and claiming to be a rebel like her, but really just trying to escape the establishment on Dal Quor, which is about to kill him so that he'll reincarnate as a normal quori? Just an example: is that impossible?
Shady314 03-08-07, 07:01 PM	One idea: if there are LG quori even though most quori are LE, might there not be CE quori? Maybe a CE quori who murdered a different quori over some slight, frustration, or conflict, and then came running to Tarantai, lying and claiming to be a rebel like her, but really just trying to escape the establishment on Dal Quor, which is about to kill him so that he'll reincarnate as a normal quori? Just an example: is that impossible? Nope it's quite possible. Nice to see someone has an imagination. The Rebel Quori were any Quori that for whatever reason you can think up did not fit in and were going to be killed so they'd reincarnate. You don't have to be LG to not want that to happen.
Shady314 03-08-07, 07:13 PM	That would be because the legacy of kalashtar is a LG Quori. Each kalashtar has to deal with that quori acting as a second conscience. Kalashtar are officially just as capable of being less noble, but it takes more resolve. Just saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. I have actually bothered to read the ECS and RoE a second time. It's not stated anywhere the quori spirit acts a conscience of any kind. It does not exert any direct influence over the Kalashtar. As if I needed more material to actually back me up... page 133 of RoE in the intro to the atavist prestige class. "The Quori spirits are spread throughout their descendants, existing now as a little more than a memory." That's the extent of their influence. Memories of Dal Quor and the DD and escaping. It'd be nice if people would bother to find something in the material somewhere to back up their claims instead of just repeating their opinions over and over. Crack open your ECS and look at Kalashtar alignment. GENERALLY LG not ALWAYS. Furthermore look at it's explanation for why Kalashtar tend towards LG. It does NOT mention their quori spirit acting as a moral compass (it doesn't mention the spirit at all!) nor does it mention Kalashtar requiring any extra mental willpower to be evil. To be clear I have no problem with houseruling whatever you like but let's not pretend your fanon is canon. I just hate to see people reintroducing alignment BS. "Oh you're going to have to play LG or darn close to it PC. Ok fine you can be evil but you'll have to be insane then. Nope you can't have an evil quori lineage not a single evil quori fled Dal Quor. They were all LG so you must be some sort of good or the subconscious entity will somehow drive you bonkers."
Omnirahk, half-Rahkshi 03-08-07, 08:19 PM	Woah, I wasn't trying to say they're always LG. I'm just saying they're more prone. And I know I saw somewhere on the WotC website, a mention of the quori spirit "chiding" a kalashtar that it doesn't agree with.* Yeah, a kalashtar doesn't have two minds. The quori is diluted. But it still has a tad more than one mind. *Something to the extent of "does every kalashtar have the same voice in its head ___ ____ ____ ____ ?" That said, the CPsi web enhancement, the adaptation to Eberron, did mention the Blades of the Taratai (or something like that), a group of Lurk/Soulknives. Basically acting like assassins/terrorists. Not LG. It could be possible that they share a common (few) lineage(s), quori ancestor(s) more willing to take a militant approach. Perhaps LE in the extent of being ruthlessly willing to deal with enemies of the kalashtar cause. Summary: kalashtar are still entirely capable of alignment variation. However, the extent to which it occurs is logically less than other races. Non-lawful, even chaotic, is imaginable. Non-good is also imaginable. Evil is hard to imagine. Hard-hearted, ruthless devotion to the kalashtar cause, or even just to the kalashtar's right to exist type evil is understandable. But cultist devoted the daelkyr, the Dragon Below, or the like type evil is extraordinarily rare.
Shady314 03-08-07, 11:37 PM	And I know I saw somewhere on the WotC website, a mention of the quori spirit "chiding" a kalashtar that it doesn't agree with.* Agree with a lot of what you said but not this. Until you can actually find it let's not reference "mysterious somethings somewhere says such and such." Especially when it's just floating on the website somewhere. Out of context whatever you read (if it exists) could be anything. For example a character concept for a schizophrenic Kalashtar that talks to themselves thinking they are talking to their spirit. Hmmm that'd be an interesting concept. If you look at the ECS enrty for Kalshtar and it's brief entry on alignment you will see their tendency towards LG is a function of their society and culture which is smaller and tighter knit with more homogeneity and an emphasis on ascetism and self-control than other races not their quori spirits. And I think cultist "I want to destroy the world evil" is rare in every race not just Kalashtar.
Omnirahk, half-Rahkshi 03-09-07, 11:35 AM	Agree with a lot of what you said but not this. Until you can actually find it let's not reference "mysterious somethings somewhere says such and such." Especially when it's just floating on the website somewhere. Out of context whatever you read (if it exists) could be anything. For example a character concept for a schizophrenic Kalashtar that talks to themselves thinking they are talking to their spirit. Hmmm that'd be an interesting concept. If you look at the ECS enrty for Kalshtar and it's brief entry on alignment you will see their tendency towards LG is a function of their society and culture which is smaller and tighter knit with more homogeneity and an emphasis on ascetism and self-control than other races not their quori spirits. And I think cultist "I want to destroy the world evil" is rare in every race not just Kalashtar. Ok, found the quote. Does every kalashtar hear a little voice inside his head, and is it the same voice for all of them? I could've sworn it also mentioned the quori having a tendency to at least encourage a course of actions. Kalashtar are still capable of ignoring it, but then have to deal with a quori "nagging" them. Maybe there was another quote somewhere. Oh well, forget it. I doubt I'll ever find that quote I'm remembering. I personally consider the quori to be a little like a parent to the kalashtar. If it disapproves, there's the, "I'm very disappointed in you" speach. Which the kalashtar can't walk out on. Might be nice to make a "rebellious goth teenager" kalashtar, evil just to spite his/her ancestor.
Shady314 03-09-07, 04:33 PM	Ok, found the quote. Originally Posted by http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20050408news Does every kalashtar hear a little voice inside his head, and is it the same voice for all of them? Ooops you forgot the sentence right after it. "Does every kalashtar hear a little voice inside his head, and is it the same voice for all of them? Races of Eberron answers these questions and more." And the answer according to RoE is no. I could've sworn it also mentioned the quori having a tendency to at least encourage a course of actions. Kalashtar are still capable of ignoring it, but then have to deal with a quori "nagging" them. Maybe there was another quote somewhere. Oh well, forget it. I doubt I'll ever find that quote I'm remembering. Yes memory plays tricks on all of us which is why it's always a good idea to fall back on the canon/RAW we can check as the basis for discussion and not things we half-remember. Once we have that we can do the wild conjecturing. For example... Wild Conjecture: Perhaps a kalashtar could gain a deeper contact with their quori spirit for a transitory period. It is buried deep in their subconscious. Deep and focused meditation and pursuit of the atavist prestige class may let a character get in touch with their lineage to the point they might be able to have some sort of conversation. I have a vision quest type thing in my mind. That could be interesting. Understanding yourself also means understanding the quori ancestor linked to your soul.
Siberys 04-05-07, 11:51 PM	well, after finally getting back access to my books, I know what I was thinking of. RoE, p.58 - 'Inner Balance' Specifically, the statement "A kalashtar must maintain the delicate balance between her two inner forces or risk going mad". not quite 'if your not the same AL as your Quori spirit, you'll be a tad insane'... But still, you must maintain a careful equilibrium.
Shady314 04-06-07, 12:42 AM	well, after finally getting back access to my books, I know what I was thinking of. RoE, p.58 - 'Inner Balance' Specifically, the statement "A kalashtar must maintain the delicate balance between her two inner forces or risk going mad". not quite 'if your not the same AL as your Quori spirit, you'll be a tad insane'... But still, you must maintain a careful equilibrium. Yeah and I already found that page for ya and quoted it on the 1st page. I also bothered to quote the whole thing thing for context which greatly clarifies it. :rolleyes: Even going by that single sentence that doesn't mention alignment I don't see where you can get the "equilibrium must come from matching alignment" without reading into it a great amount. Alignment has little to do with your emotional/mental state. Not every insane person has the chaotic alignment nor is everyone with the lawful alignment well balanced and rational. Alignment just doesn't come into it.
Siberys 04-06-07, 01:40 AM	First, Since you appear to be a fan of RoE turn your attention (when you get your books) to page 58 Inner Balance. I quote "The mind of a kalashtar is a SYNTHESIS of human soul and quori spirit. The quori empowers the host but is NOT an INDEPENDENT PRESENCE. is not what I was referring to in my previous post. I'll say it again - I JUST GOT ACCESS TO MY BOOK BACK! And "Fan"? Sure, of the game mechanics, and the Kalashtar Fluff. Most of the rest is garbage, but the Kalashtar section and the crunch is fantastic. I didn't say you had to be chaotic to be insane - just that Chaotic Kalashtar would very likely BE insane! Second, why the vitriol? Frankly, I think the reason I missed that part in your post is because of the acidic taste. For example, I quoted you, editing only by adding bolded numbers to reference points in my post. And you accuse me of editing the post to change the meaning! Posts like Right you'd just punish them for it. Just show it more. I would not 'Punish' players for wanting something interesting. But I'd tell them the backstory of the world, how things usually are, and the possible effects of certain choices. But I'm CERTAIN there are no EVIL QUORI THEMSELVES - even if they are only 66. Sure but there's only 66 lineages. And they'll know every time they meet a member of any lineage they know whether he is evil or not. Not exactly. They'll know the AL of the Quori Spirit. And he might know that those of different alignments might be a bit tipsy. I come into this discussion, 'cause I love Kalashtar & the Quori. I tried to be friendly and all. So I'm slightly wrong on something - they aren't always progressively insane depending on alignment.(Oh, wait! I didn't say that! I said "Here's how I see it, for "Kalashtar Joe", with a LG quori spirit <table> In other words, the farther his actual AL is from that of his Quori spirit, the more "out of tune" he is"). Also, not to be slinging mud, but note join dates. Shady..........ME 8/10/06........12/20/04 I've been here since almost the settings inception. I was here before RoE, and participated in the disappointed discussions. I won't claim to be some prominent member, but you've scarcely been here six months. I KNOW what I'm talking about, even if I make an error every once in a while. I AM human after all. [/rant] You go ahead and play how you like - I was never out to get you, or change your game. I couldn't even if I HAD wanted to. However, it seems you have some vendetta against me. And I'll bet you didn't read most of that. I know I couldn't read some of your posts; the acid burned my eyes :rolleyes: Goodbye, Shady314. Ath pel lalatha!
maollelujah 04-06-07, 10:33 AM	the Serath line does have I believe the only known evil Kalashtar, Sharserath (ROE). But I believe the line is generally LG.
Shady314 04-07-07, 12:46 AM	First, is not what I was referring to in my previous post. I'll say it again - I JUST GOT ACCESS TO MY BOOK BACK! You quoted the exact same heading and page number that I provided to be helpful. :rolleyes: Sheesh. And "Fan"? Sure, of the game mechanics, and the Kalashtar Fluff. Most of the rest is garbage, but the Kalashtar section and the crunch is fantastic. Yes.... fan. Ok? I didn't know fan was a dirty word now? Is fan not the right word??? :confused: I didn't say you had to be chaotic to be insane - just that Chaotic Kalashtar would very likely BE insane! I disagreed. For the same reason I wouldn't say any member of any race tends to be insane if they have a chaotic alignment. It's just no good for PCs. Second, why the vitriol? Frankly, I think the reason I missed that part in your post is because of the acidic taste. Vitriol? I thought I managed to maintain an even composed tone without resorting to personal attacks or unnecessary sarcasm. I honestly tried very hard since some people have very thin skins vs disagreements. If you felt I stepped out of line please inform a moderator. Seriously. It wasn't easy either with the way you'd respond to every argument by ignoring the entirety of your previous post and either ignoring what you had said before or claiming I misunderstood. For example, I quoted you, editing only by adding bolded numbers to reference points in my post. And you accuse me of editing the post to change the meaning! I didn't "accuse" you of having nefarious intentions. I merely pointed out that the editing you did of that particular point did indeed change the entire context of my post. I wanted to avoid strawman arguments here. Posts like Just show it more. Quoting within quotes gets too crazy at this stage. But if anyone wants to go back and read it they can see that wasn't a personal attack it was an honest criticism of the logical progression of the line of thinking you proposed and I quoted. I would not 'Punish' players for wanting something interesting. But I'd tell them the backstory of the world, how things usually are, and the possible effects of certain choices. But I'm CERTAIN there are no EVIL QUORI THEMSELVES - even if they are only 66. As I've continued to try to make clear throughout this entire topic, your personal opinion I respect, (if you want every quori that fled Dal Quor to be LG and any non good kalashtar to be looney I certainly won't try to stop you) but your certainties do not make canon nor are they supported within any official sources I've found thus far. If you'd like to actually debate that using actual sources rather than repeating your opinions ad nauseam I would love that. Not exactly. They'll know the AL of the Quori Spirit. And he might know that those of different alignments might be a bit tipsy. And I just don't see why this would be. I re-read pages worth of material just because I was taking this discussion seriously and have failed to find anything that supports this idea canonically. I come into this discussion, 'cause I love Kalashtar & the Quori. I tried to be friendly and all. So I'm slightly wrong on something - they aren't always progressively insane depending on alignment. Okae if you feel you were wrong on something why not just say Ooops my mistake and move on? I've done it before. Who's never been wrong? (Oh, wait! I didn't say that! I said "Here's how I see it, for "Kalashtar Joe", with a LG quori spirit <table> In other words, the farther his actual AL is from that of his Quori spirit, the more "out of tune" he is"). Trying to rewrite history or something? Just to be sure I actually bothered to go back and reread your original post to see if you had said IMG or IMC or anything similar (in which case it would have been my mistake and I would have apologized) but that isn't what you said. What you said was IIRC (ie If I am remembering the books correctly, which you were not) here's how I see "Joe Kalashtar." That's not "here's how I've changed the kalashtar race as a whole." That's "Here's how I run the kalashtar based on the official sources that outline them." There's a difference there and since you were remembering it incorrectly I tried to clarify. Apparently because I have a personal vendetta against someone I don't know. :rolleyes: I also tried to point out using AL like that doesn't make any sense since it has no history of having a bearing on the emotional/mental state of a PC or NPC nor is it even mentioned in the sentence you quoted. Also, not to be slinging mud, but note join dates. Shady..........ME 8/10/06........12/20/04 :rofl: What is this? Your pulling rank or seniority or something? Have you never heard of lurking my friend? ;) I mean what you are infallible because you posted before I did? I'm not even going to touch the fallacies of that argument. Way too many. I've been here since almost the settings inception. I was here before RoE, and participated in the disappointed discussions. I won't claim to be some prominent member, but you've scarcely been here six months. I KNOW what I'm talking about, even if I make an error every once in a while. I AM human after all. [/rant] You clearly don't know what you're talking about and you obviously know it or you wouldn't be ranting or taking something so unimportant so personally. I'm not stopping you from playing the Kalashtar anyway you like. I was just making sure the canon was clear for any poor newbs like myself that have only been here for a little awhile and might get confused by a mistake from a more established member. You go ahead and play how you like - I was never out to get you, or change your game. I couldn't even if I HAD wanted to. However, it seems you have some vendetta against me. Vendetta against you? Because I disagreed with you? Have you heard of a martyr complex? Have I been dogging you throughout all of your posts attacking you? I don't recall doing that but if you feel I have please inform a mod. That is what they are for after all. If you think you have any case whatsoever against me please help me before I get out of line again to another innocent poster. And I'll bet you didn't read most of that. I know I couldn't read some of your posts; the acid burned my eyes :rolleyes: Well you had enough honesty to admit you didn't always bother to read everything I wrote. I appreciate that. But just FYI I always bother to read the whole of anything I want to discuss or respond to. I figure I owe them that much if I'm going to be taking away their time. It's just simple courtesy. It's also very important to have a whole and complete understanding of their words in order to counter with your own arguments. So yes I read all of that. I didn't even skim, I read it word for word. Wish you had returned the courtesy.
Shady314 04-07-07, 12:48 AM	the Serath line does have I believe the only known evil Kalashtar, Sharserath (ROE). But I believe the line is generally LG. No no that's impossible! Siberys is CERTAIN and he has been here longer than you. Unless you've got a personal vendetta against Siberys like I do. :rofl: Sorry I couldn't help myself.
Siberys 04-07-07, 02:43 AM	You quoted the exact same heading and page number that I provided to be helpful. :rolleyes: Sheesh but a different sentence, specifically where I got my idea. Vitriol? I thought I managed to maintain an even composed tone without resorting to personal attacks or unnecessary sarcasm. I honestly tried very hard since some people have very thin skins vs disagreements. If you felt I stepped out of line please inform a moderator. Seriously. First thing you said to me after my first post in this thread was "If only this setting had a sourcebook with information on the new races such as the kalashtar and/or a prestige class called the atavist that explains the weakened links kalashtar hold with their spirits. Oh that's right it does. Some of you really need to read it." Others include: Nice to see someone has an imagination. Right you'd just punish them for it. :rolleyes: Oh well if YOU say it.:rolleyes: I'm guessing you just don't know what canon IS. Unlike half of what you keep saying. and AFTER my last post No no that's impossible! Siberys is CERTAIN and he has been here longer than you. Unless you've got a personal vendetta against Siberys like I do.:rofl: If that ain't vitriol, then what is? I didn't "accuse" you of having nefarious intentions. I merely pointed out that the editing you did of that particular point did indeed change the entire context of my post. I wanted to avoid strawman arguments here. How was context changed? The terms you used were interchangable in the context - I was pointing out that "this is how I houserule it in my games" and "it's where you come down on a rules interpretation as a DM and the final decider of how things work in your campaign." are synonymous statements, because, isn't a houserule a DM's interpretation in his campaign? Quoting within quotes gets too crazy at this stage. But if anyone wants to go back and read it they can see that wasn't a personal attack it was an honest criticism of the logical progression of the line of thinking you proposed and I quoted. Again, the ":rolleyes:" showed a tone that gave it an acidic overtone. As I've continued to try to make clear throughout this entire topic, your personal opinion I respect, (if you want every quori that fled Dal Quor to be LG and any non good kalashtar to be looney I certainly won't try to stop you) but your certainties do not make canon nor are they supported within any official sources I've found thus far. If you'd like to actually debate that using actual sources rather than repeating your opinions ad nauseam I would love that. 1) I never said every kalashtar-quori would be LG, just most, and that is definitely supported by canon. Nor did I say every one would be looney, just Less sane the farther from the quori's base AL they got (splitting hairs, I'll admit.) 2) Did I ever say they were canon? No! You can look through, and NEVER will you find anywhere that I said it was canon. Most you'll find is that I believe it came from RoE. And I just don't see why this would be. I re-read pages worth of material just because I was taking this discussion seriously and have failed to find anything that supports this idea canonically. Again, that last sentence of the first Paragraph of 'Inner Balance' is key. Okae if you feel you were wrong on something why not just say Ooops my mistake and move on? I've done it before. Who's never been wrong? Yes. I was wrong. It's not a certainty, but a possibility that increases in chance as that balance gets harder to maintain. Trying to rewrite history or something? Just to be sure I actually bothered to go back and reread your original post to see if you had said IMG or IMC or anything similar (in which case it would have been my mistake and I would have apologized) but that isn't what you said. What you said was IIRC (ie If I am remembering the books correctly, which you were not) here's how I see "Joe Kalashtar." I'm NOT rewriting history. READ the quote: Here's how I see it, for "Kalashtar Joe", with a LG quori spirit Not "Here's how it always is in the Campaign Setting unless you specifically change it", but "HOW I SEE IT". That's not "here's how I've changed the kalashtar race as a whole." That's "Here's how I run the kalashtar based on the official sources that outline them." There's a difference there and since you were remembering it incorrectly I tried to clarify. Apparently because I have a personal vendetta against someone I don't know. :rolleyes: But I never said I changed it. And I appreciate you trying to clarify, but you did it in such a way that made it seem as though you were unnecessarily angered by my statement - see the posts 11 and 12 - even other people thought you were being confrontational! I also tried to point out using AL like that doesn't make any sense since it has no history of having a bearing on the emotional/mental state of a PC or NPC nor is it even mentioned in the sentence you quoted. This is more of a psychological debate, but wouldn't personal outlook directly affect your mental state? If you are Evil, are you not more prone to violent thought? If you are Chaotic, are you not more inclined to consciously move against tradition? :rofl: What is this? Your pulling rank or seniority or something? Have you never heard of lurking my friend? ;) I mean what you are infallible because you posted before I did? I'm not even going to touch the fallacies of that argument. Way too many. Seniority? no. But I doubt you've been lurking as long as I've been participating; I'm sure you'd have had something to say. Never did I imply I was infallible; Just, I very well may have had more experience in regards to the setting. When I get an Eberron book, I read cover to cover. I know what I'm talking about in regards to the setting. You clearly don't know what you're talking about and you obviously know it or you wouldn't be ranting or taking something so unimportant so personally. I'm not stopping you from playing the Kalashtar anyway you like. I was just making sure the canon was clear for any poor newbs like myself that have only been here for a little awhile and might get confused by a mistake from a more established member. It's hard to take Siberys don't you think don't you think some bizarre rule like that might have been mentioned somewhere in the ECS or RoE or ANYWHERE at all? Hey by the way DMs make sure your players know the original alignment of the quori they share a bond with. They may or may not be totally insane because of it! unpersonally. Vendetta against you? Because I disagreed with you? Have you heard of a martyr complex? Have I been dogging you throughout all of your posts attacking you? I don't recall doing that but if you feel I have please inform a mod. That is what they are for after all. If you think you have any case whatsoever against me please help me before I get out of line again to another innocent poster. Maybe vendetta was too strong a word, but all that sarcasm sure made it feel that way. Well you had enough honesty to admit you didn't always bother to read everything I wrote. I appreciate that. But just FYI I always bother to read the whole of anything I want to discuss or respond to. I figure I owe them that much if I'm going to be taking away their time. It's just simple courtesy. It's also very important to have a whole and complete understanding of their words in order to counter with your own arguments. So yes I read all of that. I didn't even skim, I read it word for word. Wish you had returned the courtesy. I understood what you were saying without reading your unnecessary sarcasm - you said I shouldn't punish a player for an original concept, which was never my intent. You said making a character be a certain alignment was a bad idea, and I never disagreed. But tell me, does the following logic have some major fallacy in it? Kalashtar have two souls or consciences, albeit one diluted, though still present enough to grant psionic benefits. These two consciences need to maintain a balance - if they don't, the Kalashtar may risk going insane. One way the consciences may be out of balance is their ideology - disagreements on fundamental beliefs - in other words, Alignment. Ergo, If there is an AL imbalance, the Kalashtar risks insanity.
Nived 04-07-07, 03:07 AM	That's still a bold inferance, and it is an inferance. Nowhere does it say that in plain text that a Kalashtar have to be a certain alignment, or go insane. "Delicate balanace" "harmony" and what not are bits and peices that had to be looked for. "Have to be the same alignment as your line or go insane" is a fairly MAJOR thing for a player to consider, and if that was indeed the intent I doubt it'd be a vauge inferance that needs 3 books to justify. If you want to run it more power to you. However I believe and in my games I'd allow Kalashtar brothers of opposing alignments. One who is CN and believes in directly confronting the agents of the dreaming dark by whatever means nessacary, and the other being a LG psion who spends most of his time in contemplation and meditation. Both are sane, they have just chosen different lives, because they have free will and are not bound to do the will of the spirit that bonded with their ancestor. That would be the Inspired, not the Kalashtar.
Shady314 04-07-07, 03:28 AM	but a different sentence, specifically where I got my idea. Yes and I prefer to take the entire section as a whole. Focusing on a single sentence within a larger body of work is not a good idea when searching for substance. First thing you said to me after my first post in this thread was "If only this setting had a sourcebook with information on the new races such as the kalashtar and/or a prestige class called the atavist that explains the weakened links kalashtar hold with their spirits. Oh that's right it does. Some of you really need to read it." That's why I said I refrain from unnecessary sarcasm. ;) That was very necessary! :cool: Others include: Nice to see someone has an imagination. Said to someone else and in regards to a different poster aka not you. Right you'd just punish them for it. :rolleyes: You specifically said you would make your player play an insane character. Forcing a player to fit your non-canonical version of the Kalashtar is punishing them for thinking differently than you. I stand by that. Oh well if YOU say it.:rolleyes: I'm guessing you just don't know what canon IS. 1. The first part is mild sarcasm directed at your repeated insistence on stating your personal opinion based on a book you admitted not having with you at the time! Forgive me if it offended your sensitivities. 2. The second is a single sentence taken out of contextas, as you are so fond of doing where it becomes clear that I was serious. Why should I assume you are aware of the technical definition of canon? You called something canon that wasn't and I attempted to verify that you knew what canon IS. No vitriol just you being sensitive. Unlike half of what you keep saying. Another quote that again contains no vitriol. How is pointing out a difference like that vitriol? No no that's impossible! Siberys is CERTAIN and he has been here longer than you. Unless you've got a personal vendetta against Siberys like I do.:rofl: If that ain't vitriol, then what is? Ok so you don't know what vitriol or canon is. :rofl: And it's funny that again you quote but leave out the entirety of the post. The sentence after the rofl makes it clear it's a joke. In case the rofl itself doesn't make it clear. :rofl: If you actually believe what you are saying you should inform a mod. How was context changed? The terms you used were interchangable in the context - I was pointing out that "this is how I houserule it in my games" and "it's where you come down on a rules interpretation as a DM and the final decider of how things work in your campaign." are synonymous statements, because, isn't a houserule a DM's interpretation in his campaign? Ok I'll repeat myself again. Those two things are NOT the same. Houseruling means you have deliberately and knowingly changed the rules to suit your play style. Again I'll remind you I have no problem with this. The other means this is how you have decided on a vague or confusing mechanics question with no current official answer. When there is an official answer and you stick with your own that's a houserule The fluff of Kalashtar emotional/mental states has nothing to do with mechanics. Any such rulings and changes are houserules. I guess you just missed the earlier post where I said I'm trying to debate canon here if you are arguing houserules with me please let me know so we can stop this? Maybe if you actually started reading the entire post and didn't focus on single sentences? :rolleyes: I'll say it again. If you've accepted this is all your own houserule stuff please let me know. I have no interest in debating houserules with you. When this started I was under the impression you thought it was canon. If I was mistaken that is all you have to say. Again, the ":rolleyes:" showed a tone that gave it an acidic overtone. Ok well we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think eyeroll = personal attack or else the emoticon wouldn't exist for use in the forum.... :rolleyes: :D 1) I never said every kalashtar-quori would be LG, just most, and that is definitely supported by canon. And not something I ever argued against. Nor did I say every one would be looney, just Less sane the farther from the quori's base AL they got (splitting hairs, I'll admit.) :confused: Excuse me? Do you not remember what you wrote? You wrote down a table that ended with a Kalashtar being "stark raving loopy"! direct quote! Ok you've wandered straight into revisionist history which would work better if it weren't one page away. 2) Did I ever say they were canon? No! You can look through, and NEVER will you find anywhere that I said it was canon. Most you'll find is that I believe it came from RoE. 1. You said and I quote "IIRC." Now maybe it's just because I've been on the boards for such a short time :rolleyes: but I believe IIRC means "If I Recall Correctly" which implies what follows is your memories/interpretations of actual official sources NOT whatever you've houseruled into your games. Again, that last sentence of the first Paragraph of 'Inner Balance' is key. No. The whole section is key. Like when you're in school you read the whole textbook not one sentence and then say OK I've got it! :P Yes. I was wrong. It's not a certainty, but a possibility that increases in chance as that balance gets harder to maintain. Ok. But it's up to the PC if that chance is failed. There's no dice rolling mechanics for it. That means it's left up to RP. And there's no reason AL has to play into the balance. As the entire section makes clear. See you say ok my bad but then you turn around and try to defend it? Just relax. You didn't have your books. You remembered something incompletely. It happens. It's happened to me. Just let it go. I'm NOT rewriting history. READ the quote: Not "Here's how it always is in the Campaign Setting unless you specifically change it", but "HOW I SEE IT". No. Here is the actual quote. Just use ctrl-c then ctrl-v. "IIRC, a great majority of Kalashtar-bound Quori are LG, and if a kalashtar's alignment differs significantly from that of his quori spirit, he'll be mildly insane, what with basically two consciences warring in his mind. Here's how I see it, for "Kalashtar Joe", with a LG quori spirit" IIRC as I've already stated does not mean the same thing as IMG or IMC etc. It means this is how I recall the BOOKS saying it is. I saw you made a mistake and corrected it. I'll apologize right now for being snarky about it. Which I was I admit. I didn't expect such sensitivity. But I never said I changed it. And I appreciate you trying to clarify, but you did it in such a way that made it seem as though you were unnecessarily angered by my statement - see the posts 11 and 12 - even other people thought you were being confrontational! True. I was snarky at first because I thought you were arguing canon. Then you seemed to say no no it's a houserule type situation and I relaxed. Then there were all these arguments that again seemed to be saying it was canon. I freely admit it may have just been confusion on my end. This is more of a psychological debate, but wouldn't personal outlook directly affect your mental state? If you are Evil, are you not more prone to violent thought? If you are Chaotic, are you not more inclined to consciously move against tradition? Only from an RP standpoint not from a mechanics standpoint. And I'm not going to try and tell anyone how to RP. You can be a LG totally deranged inquistor type paladin for example. I just don't think it should play into it in such a way a DM should come down on anyone and say you must be mentally unbalanced because of this sentence in the non-canonical RoE. Seniority? no. But I doubt you've been lurking as long as I've been participating; I'm sure you'd have had something to say. I lurked for a year so no still not as long. Not that it matters. Might as well ask which of us is older. :rolleyes: Never did I imply I was infallible; Just, I very well may have had more experience in regards to the setting. When I get an Eberron book, I read cover to cover. I know what I'm talking about in regards to the setting. Except in this particular instance where your memory of a book not in your posession betrayed you. Saying otherwise DOES imply infallibility. Heck you can be Keith Baker but if what you think goes against canon that doesn't make it true. Technically of course since I like most people would tend to side with KB over WOTC. It's hard to take unpersonally. Sorry. I was trying to humorously point out that if your interpretation were correct that would be too huge and important a piece of fluff to not get much more attention devoted to it. Would KB really write a sentence within a larger body of work that laid down groundrules for forcing PCs into certain alignments or risk insanity? That goes against a founding principle of Eberron that I'm sure you know since you have been here so long. Maybe vendetta was too strong a word, but all that sarcasm sure made it feel that way. Again sorry. Man I'm glad I didn't use harsh sarcasm on you. To me that's just ribbing ya! I understood what you were saying without reading your unnecessary sarcasm - you said I shouldn't punish a player for an original concept, which was never my intent. You said making a character be a certain alignment was a bad idea, and I never disagreed. But tell me, does the following logic have some major fallacy in it? Kalashtar have two souls or consciences, albeit one diluted, though still present enough to grant psionic benefits. As is mentioned about 20 times the kalashtar entity cannot truly be called a consciousness. It's literally subconscious. These two consciences need to maintain a balance - if they don't, the Kalashtar may risk going insane. One way the consciences may be out of balance is their ideology - disagreements on fundamental beliefs - in other words, Alignment. Ergo, If there is an AL imbalance, the Kalashtar risks insanity. Well again you can't call it a consciousness. It's literally said to lack sentience and be in the subconscious and I think AL is more an indicator of methodology than fundamental beliefs but besides that :rolleyes: this is accurate. It's a far cry from the original AL _ Insanity Level table you first proposed though which is what really started all this. EDIT: Since I just saw Nived's post: Nived wins! since his join date is the earliest of both of us. The match goes to Nived! :)
Deekin 04-07-07, 04:33 AM	I don't think that are any linages in particular that are evil, but there is an execellet example of an evil klashatar in the book Forge of the Mindslayers.
Nived 04-07-07, 05:03 AM	EDIT: Since I just saw Nived's post: Nived wins! since his join date is the earliest of both of us. The match goes to Nived! :) Join date has little to do with it, though I did post the same opinion on the seventh post of this thread. I just think that the idea that kalashtar needing to be the alignment of their lineage or risk being insane makes a gigantic difference for the race, huge. It changes their entire dynamic. Granted they can be viewed through that lens, but I think it changes the entire flavor of the race... what kind of freedom fighters can they be if they don't even have the will to act as they wish. Not only do I think the Quori inhabiting their minds can't assert that kind of influance I don't believe they would. If a Kalashtar turned his back on his lineage the Quori in his mind wouldn't force him, it'd let him go, because to do otherwise would be too much like the enemy. Not only that the PrC and feats mentioned to justify such a connection are feats and a PrC that strengthens the bond... for the average Kalashtar I just can't believe they are slaves to an alien being who suposedly believes in justice and freedom. That just goes against my personal interpretation of the Kalashtar. If such an extreme mental strain were on a PC and risking one's sanity is extreme, I think it would be made clearer and more prominate in the text. As I said before your game may vary...
Siberys 04-07-07, 04:32 PM	See, Nived's responses are the kind I'm looking for here. Polite, logical, and without those 'jokes'. Now, Shady, you can stop being snide. I got the point. Like a dozen posts back. Continuing with them only damages your credibility, even if you are wholly right. I'd like to point out, in case there exists any confusion, I've been using the word 'conscience', as in 'Moral Compass', not 'Conscious', as in 'Aware'. I am saying that the Quori spirit may act as a secondary Moral compass (though I'll concede to Nived's points of changing the entire racial dynamic). IIRC as I've already stated does not mean the same thing as IMG or IMC etc. It means this is how I recall the BOOKS saying it is. I saw you made a mistake and corrected it. I'll apologize right now for being snarky about it. Which I was I admit. I didn't expect such sensitivity. It's not the IIRC, but the 'How I do it'. Now, thanks for the apology, and I should apologize too; :bigeyes: I'm Sorry Now, on to the actual discussion - Not only do I think the Quori inhabiting their minds can't assert that kind of influance I don't believe they would. If a Kalashtar turned his back on his lineage the Quori in his mind wouldn't force him, it'd let him go, because to do otherwise would be too much like the enemy. I'm not saying they truly assert influence, or would want to - that's the Dreaming Dark's shtick, as you point out. Rather, the diluted mind of the Quori occasionally comes to the forefront ('seed the clouds with gold', etc.). Part of this is the Quori's inherent beliefs, which the Kalashtar must definitely deal with when maintaining their inner balance. It is a truly disciplined person who could handle such a situation - shown by most Kalashtar being disciplined, knowing ways to meditate, etc. Not only that the PrC and feats mentioned to justify such a connection are feats and a PrC that strengthens the bond... for the average Kalashtar I just can't believe they are slaves to an alien being who suposedly believes in justice and freedom. That just goes against my personal interpretation of the Kalashtar. Strengthening the bond (as with Atavists) would not make them slaves - but the Kalashtar will have a stronger force to maintain a balance with. The Quori wouldn't force a Kalashtar into a certain mindset, but it might prosyltyze a bit. although you are wholly right, especially in light of this point you make; If such an extreme mental strain were on a PC and risking one's sanity is extreme, I think it would be made clearer and more prominate in the text. Therefore, I concede.
Rauric 04-09-07, 12:15 PM	Some Kalashatar can change their minds. After years on Eberron they may have decided to change their attack plan and go for a nastier (evil) way of handling the Inspired. Or some Kalashatar decided that the Cycle of evil must stop due to cosmic balance and they must do it for Balance sake not good or evil. These guys would have a more neutral slant to their beliefs.