Talk:Thri-kreen

Notability

Deleted "lack of notability" criterion; the simple fact that thri-kreen have survived so many editions of the game, and their major role in the Dark Sun setting and the 3.X Psionic's Handbook races makes them notable. They're not quite as fundamental as elves or dwarves are, but Thri-kreen are an important and unique part of DnD lore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.106.45 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also found in

This specieis is also listed in the official resource: Savage Species

Inconsistencies

Alignment

"The Thri-kreen society is very organized, and they have a strong hive mentality when in groups. Not much more is known since they have a difficult time associating with the humanoid races." Source: Dark Sun: Players Handbook v-3.5

"Alignment - Thri-kreens are usually any chaotic alignment."

Chaotic alignments are not synonymous with chaos-theory's use of the word chaos. Either Thri-kreen society is highly organised and Thri-kreen themselves are usually lawful, or if they are indeed chaotic in nature they would not be highly organised.

If an observer can't fathom their motives and sees them act in seemingly random ways does not make them chaotic. I would suspect that any insectoid creatures living as a hive would have the D&D alignment of lawful neutral. Members of a hive intelligent enough to have the capacity to deviate from this default alignment stand a greater chance of being tolerated if they were good or evil, than if they were chaotic.

-- Tim 82.196.42.132 10:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thri-Kreen are chaotic according to the MMII and the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and I notice you aren't complaining about elves. Get out of the lab; it's not chaos theory.

To elaborate, in D&D, being chaotic means that you are free-spirited and dislike the order of law. It doesn't mean you are disorganized (hence the reason I brought up the Elves above), nor does it mean you act randomly. Learn about D&D first before you start critiquing it.-Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Haven't had reason to check out the Elf (Dungeons & Dragons) page. Any civilization requires law to be able to exist, while in a humanoid society citizens of a chaotic nature in D&D terms could still exist, a hive is a wholly different situation. If the hive does not move as a cohesive group, working and following strict rules to a common goal, then the hive fails. Any hive structure must be lawful. As in nature all aberrant members would actually be killed to protect the hive. A Thri-kreen or Formian hive is not the same as a human city.

Now in the base D&D rules Thri-kreen are, in 3rd edition at least, a nomadic people. That fits perfectly within the chaotic alignment remit. But to mention hive structures in the paragraph preceding is confusing and contradictory. It should also mention a shift in default alignment. Chaotic nomads are cool, lawful hive subjects are cool. Chaotic hive subjects just don't work (that could be a really bad pun, it wasn't intended).

As for learning about D&D, I'm a walking 3rd Ed encyclopaedia. My knowledge of 3.5 is limited to the 3 core books only. One thing is certain TSR, WoC, et. al. have never been particularly good at describing what the alignments mean. But we go along with them, because that's what's published, unless your GM says otherwise. Thri-kreen to my experience have existed in D&D even in 2nd edition, and have changed in subtle ways across editions.

My mention of chaos theory was because it would be the only way that anyone could describe a Thri-kreen hive member as chaotic and yet still work within a hive. I.e. that they were actually lawful, but the logic behind their actions unfathomable, and so to the observer chaotic. Distinctly unlike D&D alignments. Which is exactly what I point out in the first sentence. But in that way the whole hive could be considered chaotic in the none D&D way, who can fathom what an individual ant is doing. -- Tim 82.196.42.132 08:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It says here in the 3.5 (Expanded) Psionics Handbook that they make camps, which are not permanent. It doesn't mention "hives" of any kind. The same goes for my 3rd edition Monster Manual II. I'll look over the article and zap any mention of hives - as a DM myself that uses 3.5 material in a 3.0 way, I know that misinformation can ruin things, even encyclopedia articles. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I just double-checked the article. "Hive mentality" =/= hive. I can't confirm the source, but I will tag it as {{cite}} because Dark Sun was not made for 3.5. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Default setting?

When was Forgotten Realms any such thing? Hasn't Greyhawk been the basic setting for every edition prior to 4th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.172.13 (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are correct; feel free to edit the article to fix it! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Forgotten Realms was the default setting for 2nd edition, then TSR as a whole "de-gygaxed" the game. Even other settings were appended to the Realms; Oriental Adventures' Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim's Zakhara and Maztica were all placed on the same world as the realms. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no "default setting" for D&D in 2nd edition, or anytime before that. FR just received the most attention. Take a look at the 2nd edition PHB and DMG and tell me how many FR references you find. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional reading

Should this be placed in the AR section? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

[| Thri Kreen Biology]

Heh, no, not really. :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Shhhhhh lol 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)