• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

[Let's Read] The Palladium Roleplaying Game, AKA Palladium Fantasy First Edition

Spikey

Mean Mm-Mm Servant of God
Validated User
Of the twenty-one fourth level spells on the main list
  • two (10%) have no parameters that change with caster level
    • ‘Familiar Link’
    • ‘Negate Magic’
  • one (5%) has a single parameter other than duration that changes with caster level
    • ‘Clay to Lead’
  • four (19%) have more than one parameter that changes with caster level
    • ‘Animate/Control Dead’
    • ‘Control the Beasts’
    • ‘Wall of Ice’
    • ‘Wall of Thorns’
The other fourteen all have durations that are linear functions of caster level. Those percentages aren’t too far off the first three levels.

Fourth level does have four permanent spells out of twenty-one (19%), as opposed to one out of sixteen (6%) for first, one out of twenty (5%) for second and one out of twenty-one (5%) for third. Higher levels of the main spell list don’t continue this trend towards more permanent spells, though:
  • fifth level has four permanent spells out of twenty-two (18%)
  • sixth has two out of seventeen (12%)
  • seventh has one out of eleven (9%)
  • eighth has three out of eleven (27%)
  • ninth has one out of four (25%)
  • tenth has none out of five
  • eleventh has two out of three (67%)
and none of the spells of legend are permanent. It seems like there’s just a jump in the number of permanent spells at fourth level, at the same time as the total number of spells available per level stops rising. Not that the permanent spells discussed above are particularly signifcant on their own, but I get the feeling that a number of the effects already discussed would make a lot of sense as permanent effects achievable by powerful wizards. I’ll have more to say about that particular issue when I discuss the ‘Permanence’ ward (see below).

Fifth level spells are written up on pp68-70.

‘Blind’ can be cast up to ninety feet away and lasts five minutes per caster level. It blinds ‘one person’ – subject to a saving throw – giving them (as discussed above) a penalty of -5 to strike, a penalty of -10 to dodge and parry, and a 50% chance ‘of stumbling and falling’ for every ten feet they move. The write-up says, ‘If the blind spell is cast upon another spell caster he cannot use any spells which require his vision.’ The next sentence specifies that a spellcaster blinded by this spell then casting ‘any defensive/assault spells such as magic net, ball lightning, fire ball, carpet of adhesion, etc.’ has a 65% chance of casting it on their allies by mistake.

I haven’t been mentioning line of sight requirements for the spells I’ve covered so far – I assume it’s fairly obvious which spells need the caster to know exactly where the target is – but it may be worth clarifying at this point. The wizard class write-up glossary says, on p57,

Line of vision means that the spell caster’s target/victim must be within his sight (line of vision) to be affected. If the target is not seen, totally obscured by obstacles,darkness, invisibility or just not seen by the spell caster (hiding, behind him, beyond normal vision) the spell cannot be used. However, some line of vision spells can be directed in a specific area that the spell caster can see to affect someone invisible or hidden.
(Mentions of ‘line of vision’ I’ve skipped over include the rules for parrying in hand-to-hand combat: I didn’t cover it above but the combat rules specify, on p42, that a combatant can parry any and all attacks within their ‘line of vision’ – losing an attack for each parry attempted unless they have a hand-to-hand combat skill other than the non-arms one – and cannot parry attacks out of their 'line of vision'.)
 
Last edited:

Spikey

Mean Mm-Mm Servant of God
Validated User
The spells requiring the caster to have ‘line of vision’ to the target(s) discussed above are
  • ‘See the Invisible’ – the write-up actually specifies that only invisible people and things in the target’s line of sight are seen, not that the caster needs line of sight to the target
  • ‘Fleet Feet’
  • ‘Multiple Image’
  • ‘Speed of the Snail’
  • ‘Call Lightning’
  • ‘Control the Beasts’
  • ‘Diminish Others’
  • ‘Size of the Behemoth’
Looking ahead, the spells still to be covered (see below) that require line of sight are
  • ‘The Strengh of Utgard Loki’ – a fifth level spell from the main list
  • ‘Animate Plants’ – a fifth level spell off the main list that’s also a third level earth warlock spell
  • ‘Petrification’ – an eleventh level spell from the main list that’s also a seventh level earth warlock spell
  • ‘Fuel Flame’ – a fourth level fire warlock spell
A number of psionic abilities also require line of sight between caster and target:
  • ‘Aura of Truth’ – a first level ability costing two inner strength points
  • ‘See Aura’ – a first level ability costing four inner strength points
  • ‘Levitate’ – a second level ability costing six inner strength points
  • ‘Spontaneous Combustion’ – a second level ability costing four inner strength points
  • ‘Mental Bolt of Force’ – a third level ability costing twelve inner strength points
  • ‘See the Invisible’ – a third level ability costing eight inner strength points; this ability can’t be cast on others so the distinction between needing line of sight to cast it and needing line of sight to use it doesn’t apply like it does for the spell of the same name – you can cast it while blind but you won’t be able to see anything with it
but the psionics rules say, as discussed above under ‘Blinding Flash’, that the psionic abilities ‘Presence Sense’ and ‘Extended Telepathy’ can be used to aim other psionic abilities. (Nothing is said about whether they can be used to aim spells: I’d be inclined to say yes.)

The priest class abilities turn dead (priest of gods of light), animate/command dead and curse (priest of gods of darkness) also require line of sight.

So I read the prohibition in this spell write-up against blind people casting spells as absolute: if a spell write-up specifies that ‘line of vision’ to the target is needed, it cannot be cast blind. The examples of ‘defensive/assault spells’ given in this write-up are all spells that don’t require line of sight but nevertheless apparently have a 65% chance of being accidentally cast on the wrong target(s) if the caster can’t see.

Clearly, the 65% chance is meant to make it inadvisable to cast spells – if it were a straight fifty-fifty chance or (even more plausibly) a rule that the target is randomised among all the individuals in range, it would often still be a good idea to cast a spell blind.

This is obviously a useful combat spell, taking away a character’s ability to parry (which raises the question of why there’s an explicit penalty to parry) as well as imposing penalties to hit and dodge, and would be useful against a spellcaster to prevent them from casting certain spells and/or aiming certain others. There are other reasons for wanting to temporarily blind someone, of course, but this spell is hardly subtle and, going by what’s written in the book, most of the causes of blindness are magic of one kind or another (or, presumably, slow and progressive medical conditions). There isn’t even really any explicit material in this book about gods or curses striking people blind absent spells like this, so it’s not as if you could blind someone and pretend it was a divine manifestation of something.
 

Spikey

Mean Mm-Mm Servant of God
Validated User
‘Create Bread and Milk’ is discussed above. This is another permanent spell, although I assume the bread and milk go stale and spoil resepctively in the usual way.

I suppose pro-active use of this spell would really be about creative use of bread and milk, or possibly jugs full of milk (since the jugs disappear once emptied). There are probably all sorts of things a character could do with 2d6 loaves and 1d6 gallons of milk in disappearing jugs but, trying to think about them, they all seem to require really specific circumstances, like making a trail of breadcrumbs that the caster can cancel at will in order to enable some people but not other to follow the trail.

‘Detect Poison’ can be cast up to fifteen feet away. By looking at and concentrating on a particular object (presumably including vessels of liquid) and know whether or not ‘the object or liquid is laced with poison’. (I assume the requirement to look at the object in question means this spell can’t be cast while blind.) Poisons, for the purpose of using this spell, ‘include mind, mood, and physically altering drugs.’ This spell is superior to the recognise poison skill (discussed above) in one way – the actual determination of whether or not a poison is present – but lacks the ‘fundamental knowledge of the poison’s lethalness, effects/symptoms and origins’ provided by the skill, can’t tell which or what sort of poison is present and (by my reading) can’t detect poisoning in a victim.

‘Eyes of the Wolf’ can be cast on the caster themselves or someone else and lasts twenty minutes per caster level. The write-up describes it as ‘[t]he sister spell to the Spirit of the Wolf’ (discussed above). It gives the target
  • nightvision with a range of sixty feet – six times as far as ‘Spirit of the Wolf’ (and better than a human, hob-goblin, orc, ogre, changeling or wolfen; equivalent to an elf or troll; not as good as a dwarf, goblin, kobold, troglodyte or gnome)
  • a 75% chance to see the invisible – half as good again as ‘Spirit of the Wolf’
  • the identify plants/fruit skill with a 70% chance of success (better than a sixth level druid)
  • the identify tracks skill with an 85% chance of success (better than an eighth level ranger)
  • the track skill with a 50% chance of success (equal to a second level ranger) – not as good as ‘Spirit of the Wolf’ unless the trail is more than a day old
  • ‘Detect poison 55%’ – it’s not clear to me whether this is the recognise poison skill with a 55% chance of success (equal to an assassin who’s had the skill for five levels), a spell-like ability functioning like ‘Detect Poison’, or something else.
This is a sort-of upgrade to ‘Spirit of the Wolf’ but there would be definite benefits to being under both spells at once. If the ‘[d]etect poison 55%’ ability is the recognise poison skill, for instance, it would synergise nicely with the ability to identify foods, spices and plants from ‘Spirit of the Wolf’ if you were trying to work out how someone had been poisoned to death.

The write-up for actual wolves is on p241 and specifies
  • nightvision with a range of thirty feet – less than this spell or ‘Spirit of the Wolf’
  • the track skill with an 80% chance of success – equivalent to ‘Spirit of the Wolf’ with a trail less than three hours old, otherwise better than either spell.
 

Spikey

Mean Mm-Mm Servant of God
Validated User
‘Heal Self’ restores 2d6 hit points to the caster permanently – meaning they don’t just wear off, I assume. The write-up says this spell is ‘very similar to the psionic bioregeneration’, which I think is just a comment on how it works in the fiction. The psionic ability ‘Bio-Regeneration’ (a second level ability) costs 8 points of inner strength and takes ten minutes’ concentration. A second level mind mage has a mean total of
  • 28 inner strength points if a kobold
  • 31 inner strength points if a human, elf, dwarf, goblin, ogre or wolfen
  • 38 inner strength points if a changeling
while a non-mind-mage second level character with major or master psionics has a mean total of
  • 12 inner strength points if a kobold
  • 15 inner strength points if a human, elf, dwarf, goblin, ogre or wolfen
  • 22 inner strength points if a changeling
although it’s not clear how inner strength is calculated for a pseudo-mind-mage (see below).

So a character just high-level enough to cast ‘Bio-Regeneration’ can use it, on average, once or twice – taking ten or twenty minutes – before needing to meditate or sleep; or three or four times – taking half an hour or forty minutes – if a mind mage (the only psionic specialist class in this book). A second level wizard can cast ‘Heal Self’ (or any spell or spells) three times a day, and can cast it three times in three minutes if need be.

A fifth level mind mage has a mean total of
  • 58 inner strength points if a kobold
  • 61 inner strength points if a human, elf, dwarf, goblin, ogre or wolfen
  • 68 inner strength points if a changeling
while a non-mind-mage fifth level character with major or master psionics has a mean total of
  • 26 inner strength points if a kobold
  • 29 inner strength points if a human, elf, dwarf, goblin, ogre or wolfen
  • 36 inner strength points if a changeling
so a character with the ‘Bio-Regeneration’ psionic ability who’s the same level as a witch, priest or shaman gaining access to ‘Heal Self’ can cast ‘Bio-Regeneration’, on average, three or four times – taking half an hour or forty minutes – or seven or eight – taking more than an hour – if a mind mage.

A fifth level wizard who knows ‘Heal Self’ can cast it eight times a day (and eight times in four minutes); a fifth level witch, seven times (and seven times in seven minutes); a priest or shaman, five or seven times (depending on whether they’re a priest or shaman of gods of light or gods of darkness – they can also manage two spells a minute).

In summary, ‘Heal Self’ is quicker and cheaper (in terms of the proportion of a specialist caster’s total spellcasting resources it takes) than ‘Bio-Regeneration’.

‘Induce Epilepsy’ can be cast up to sixty feet away and lasts 4d6 minutes. The appropriation of a disability for this spell is problematic, of course, especially when it could have just been called ‘Induce Seizure’.

The write-up says it attacks one target’s nervous system – subject to a saving throw – making them ‘convulse and thrash about wildly as if having a severe epileptic seizure.’ On top of naming this spell after epilepsy, characterising the disorder with that particular desription of a seizure seems un-necessarily stereotyping (not that I think a percentile table of different kinds of epileptic seizure would have been a good idea).

The victim – assuming they fail their saving throw – drops anything they’re holding and falls down, completely incapacitated. they ‘cannot engage in battle, defend himself, speak, stand, or even crawl’ and lose 1d6 hit points.
 
Last edited:

Spikey

Mean Mm-Mm Servant of God
Validated User
Leaving aside the problematic depiction of a real disability, this spell seems like an effective way to incapacitate someone without risking their death. But it’s not as effective as ‘Paralysis Bolt’ (which has a longer range and, from a fifth level caster, would last longer than this spell ever can) or even ‘Levitate Others’ (which would also last longer than this spell). The only possible advantage – apart from being able to cast this spell covertly and have people think the victim is having a non-magical seizure – is that this spell specifies that the victim drops what they’re holding while ‘Paralysis Bolt’ doesn’t (and I assume no-one drops anything just because they’re being levitated, although I suppose they might if startled).

So I’m struggling to understand why this spell is fifth level when ‘Paralysis Bolt’ is first. A first-or-second level spellcaster would cast ‘Paralysis Bolt’ with a shorter duration, on average, than this spell. But, if you’re looking for long-lasting incapacitation, this spell’s not very reliable and doesn’t get longer-lasting as your character levels up like that one does. I suspect the value of this spell (over and above the value of ‘Paralysis Bolt’) is supposed to come from the social consequences of the victim having a seizure:
  1. that they’re assumed to have merely had a seizure and not been under a spell
  2. that having a seizure may carry some social stigma in itself.
If that is why this spell is fifth level, that’s pretty problematic. I suppose some groups might enjoy exploring the stigmatisation of epilepsy in a fantasy world but it seems like a terrible idea to me.

‘Mute’ can be cast up to thirty feet away and lasts twenty minutes per caster level. Subject to a saving throw, it ‘affects the voice box and vocal cords’ so the target can’t vocalise or speak at all. the write-up says ‘preventing any voice or sounds to be uttered’ but I can’t see why the GM would rule that a character under this spell couldn’t belch or click their tongue, for instance.

This spell would be a great attack against wizards, of course, and possibly other spellcasters, depending on how much their magic is actually based on them speaking the words, as discussed above under ‘Globe of Silence’. It would also be good for preventing people from speaking for various tactical reasons, as also discussed there.

‘Metamorphosis (Self)’ lasts fifty minutes per caster level. It enables the caster to change shape into ‘any living creature’ (the examples given are sparrow, gargoyle, dragon and mouse). The caster doesn’t get any of the abilities of the assumed shape, nor lose any of their own abilities, including the ability to cast spells. This spell seems awkward. I can see the advantage to turning into a mouse, say, in order to infiltrate a building, but a sparrow that can’t fly or a dragon that can’t fly, breathe fire or fight like a dragon seems like a poor choice. And I can sort-of accept turning into a mouse and not gaining the mouse’s 90% prowl skill but surely part of that skill is due to the mouse’s size, shape and colour.

By my reading, this spell basically allows the caster to take on the appearance, shape and size (nothing is said about weight) of any living creature but the player still has resort to all and only the things on the character’s usual character sheet. I assume a character metamorphosed into a troll, ogre, wolfen or giant can handle giant-sized weapons and a character transformed into a horse can wear barding and carry a rider. What about air elementals, which are naturally invisible and immune to ordinary weapons because they’re insubstantial? I suppose I’d be tempted to say they’re not living creatures for the purpose of this spell.

So the real utility of this spell is as a sort of disguise, I think. Nothing is said in the write-up about the limits of the concept of ‘living creature’ so its unclear not only whether elementals qualify but also whether plants, for instance, count. As discussed above under the imitate voices skill, it’s not clear whether or not this spell can be used to change the caster into the shape of a particular individual (if called on to make a ruling, I would be tempted to say you can if you make a successful disguise skill roll) and it seems the caster’s voice is not changed. If that’s a valid reading, it’s a limited but interesting sort of disguise spell.

Nothing is said in this write-up about how many shape changes the caster can do: you could read it as assuming the spell changes the caster into one shape that lasts either until the caster cancels it, it's negated or the time limit runs out, whichever comes first. But the text actually says it’s a ‘spell which enables the spell caster to actually alter his physical shape and form’. As a spell that gives that ability, it would be quite natural for it to be read as allowing multiple changes, perhaps even unlimited changes at will, for the caster. That would make it a more interesting disguise spell, I think, without compromising any of its limits.
 
Last edited:

Spikey

Mean Mm-Mm Servant of God
Validated User
The write-up for ‘Metamorphosis (Self)’ also says nothing about how clothing and/or equipment are affected, if at all. It’s not a huge thing conceptually but it’s one of the first things I would expect to come up in play. If a spellcaster changes into a dragon while wearing armour, does the armour disappear? Fall off? Get destroyed? And if it disappears, can the character benefit from the armour in dragon form? What about a knife?

At one end of the spectrum of possible rules, you have the sort of thing seen above with ‘Reduce Self (6 Inches)’ and above with ‘Turn Self into Mist’, with which the caster is transformed but all their clothing and gear must be left behind. At the other end of that spectrum, you have a much more generous interpretation by which the caster’s equipment is magically absorbed into their new form, so a character with a suit of armour, a stick that shoots fireballs and a magic ring of ‘Fly as the Eagle’ could actually do a fair impersonation of a dragon. I strongly suspect it’s the former that Siembieda intended, as that’s in line with other transformation spells in this book. But the latter seems like it would be a lot more fun, would fit better with the basic principle – that the caster doesn’t lose any of their usual abilities nor gain any from their temporary shape(s) – and would make this spell radically more useful than ‘Invisibility (Self)’, which it isn’t really otherwise.

‘Shadow Beast’ lasts six minutes per caster level – with an exception – and the range is listed as ‘immediate’, which, I assume, means it’s the same ‘immediate area’ range as ‘Magic Pigeon’ and ‘Phantom’. It summons a shadow beast from its home dimension to either fight for the caster for the time given above or – and this is the exception – complete ‘a simple mission’ from the caster or die. The example missions given are ‘“bring me so and so’s gem,” or “slay so and so”’.

The write-up says there’s a 15% chance the shadow beast won’t obey the caster and will go around ‘killing innocent people for food and pleasure’ as well as killing ‘any who try to send it back’ (although I’m not sure there’s anything in this book you might think would work for that). It’s not clear whether that’s after the spell ends or instead of obeying the caster from the start.

‘Shadow beasts are large vicious predators of some other strange world.’ They are nine-to-twelve feet tall and have ‘taloned claws’ and ‘wicked fangs’ doing 1d8 damage. They can ‘merge into the smallest shadow, becoming completely invisible’ and cannot be seen by those who can see the invisible because they’re not technically invisible but shadow-merged. (The same principle applies with the spell ‘Shadow Walk/Meld’ – see below – but I just like the idea of a twelve-foot tall beast stepping into the shadow of a small stone and vanishing from view.

Some of a shadow beast’s stats are different in light and ‘darkness or shadows’. It’s not clear whether a shadow beast merged with a small shadow (on a sunny day, for instance) would count as being in light or in shadow. The shadow beast has
  • an IQ attribute score of 7 – just under the mean for a (hob-)goblin, orc or troglodyte
  • an ME attribute score of 7 – just under the mean for a kobold, orc, troll, troglodyte or gnome
  • an MA attribute score of 7 – just under the mean for an elf, dwarf, ogre, troll or wolfen
  • a PS attrbute score of 26 in shadow (with the matching damage bonus of +11) and 18 in light (the damage bonus listed is +2 but I think there must be a typo: it should either be a PS score of 17 in light or a damage bonus of +3 in light) – 17 and 18 are respectively just below and above the mean PS score for a troll
  • a PP attribute score of 24 in darkness (with the matching bonus to strike, parry and dodge of +5) and 16 in light (with the matching bonus to strike, parry and dodge of +1)
  • a PE attribute score of 30 in shadow and 15 in light (no bonuses are listed but a score of 30 would imply a bonus to save against death of +30% and a bonus to save against magic and poison of +8) – 15 is just over the mean PE score for a dwarf, kobold, ogre, troll or gnome
  • a Spd attribute score of 24 in shadow (meaning a running speed of 480 yards a minute or a three minute, forty second mile) and 8 in light (meaning a running speed of 160 yards a minute or an eleven-minute mile) – a score of 8 is just over the mean for a dwarf, troll, changeling or gnome
  • 90 hit points in shadow and 45 in light – 90 is more than an average dwarf, kobold, ogre, troll or gnome with twenty-one class levels and 45 is more than an average dwarf, kobold, ogre, troll or gnome with eight class levels
  • 3 attacks a minute in shadow and two in light
  • the prowl skill with a 90% chance of success in shadow and a 45% chance in light – 90% is better than a ninth level assassin and 45% is better than a second level assassin.
No nightvision ability is listed, raising the intriguing possibility that shadow beasts want to hide in shadows but can’t just go where it’s actually dark without bumping into things and falling over.
 
Last edited:

Spikey

Mean Mm-Mm Servant of God
Validated User
No alignment is listed for shadow beasts. Killing people ‘for food and pleasure’ may be meant to imply they’re evil but trolls are described the same way and can explicitly have any alignment (although they tend away from the good ones).

I’m struck by the full player-character-style stats of the shadow beast write-up. I wonder whether a campaign in which the player characters are all shadow beasts given simple missions to carry out might be fun: ‘“bring me so and so’s gem,”’ may seem like a boring task but shadow beasts have mental attribute scores that combine the average scores of the weakest races in all three attributes and they come from another dimension – one in which running a mile in fifteen minutes while carrying 260lb in gear and being ready to fight afterwards is the sort of fitness test appropriate for a predator. It might even be fun to use the multiclassing rules to enable player character shadow beasts to acquire classes in play: they would qualify for
  • mercenary
  • soldier
  • knight
  • thief
  • peasant
  • squire
  • noble
  • witch
  • priest
  • healer
assuming there are no racial restrictions on classes for them. Of course, you’d want to roll at character generation for the 15% chance that a given shadow beast isn’t following orders and/or doesn’t get to go home by completing its mission.

I’m also struck by how shadow beasts aren’t given numbers of dice for rolling their attributes but specific scores. It’s obviously more practical to just have the shadow beast’s stats in the book rather than having to roll it up when it’s summoned. But all the other creatures with the full set of attributes have dice listed for rolling them up – except specific individuals. So I wonder whether perhaps there’s only one shadow beast and multiple instances are from different points in its personal timeline or different dimensions or something. Those might be fun ideas to explore with an all-shadow-beast party.

Of course, this speculation about shadow-beast-focussed play is partly to say that this spell is pretty versatile. Shadow beasts would obviously be pretty effective assassins but, really, they could be tasked with a wide range of missions, depending on what the group and/or GM accepts. The write-up implies that they understand the caster’s orders but nothing is said about whether they understand speech in general or whether they themselves speak. Versions of this spell in later books do specify that shadow beasts understand Elven and their summoners’ language(s) but they also alter the stats somewhat so I really don’t think that’s a clarification of what was meant in this book.
 

Harlander

Almost determinedly non-useful
RPGnet Member
Validated User
No alignment is listed for shadow beasts. Killing people ‘for food and pleasure’ may be meant to imply they’re evil but trolls are described the same way and can explicitly have any alignment
There's only a 15% chance of that happening, though, right? That's how you know you've got an evil one.
 

Spikey

Mean Mm-Mm Servant of God
Validated User
There's only a 15% chance of that happening, though, right? That's how you know you've got an evil one.
Good thinking. But it's not clear whether that's the chance of the shadow beast wanting to run around eating people, the chance of them throwing off the spellcaster's control, or (my preferred interpretation) the probability of both those things happening.

Cannibalism, meaning the eating of people as opposed to animals (which is a more complex idea in a fantasy world where multiple species have obvious civilisations), is highlighted in a couple of places in this book, sometimes as a mark of evil people, sometimes without comment. In the racial attribute chart on p3, for instance, the listings give the following rankings for cannibalistic tendencies, from most cannibalisitc race to least.
    • ogre (99%)
    • troll (99%)
    • kobold (90%)
    • wolfen (90%)
  1. orc (60%)
  2. hob-goblin (50%)
  3. changeling (40%)
  4. troglodyte (30%)
  5. goblin (18%)
  6. human (8%)
    • elf (0%)
    • dwarf (0%)
    • gnome (0%)
This doesn't correlate strongly with what's said elsewhere about good and evil. Troglodytes are the only race described as tending away from evil alignments, while wolfen are described as having tendencies towards principled (good) and aberrant (evil). Ogres, trolls, kobolds, orcs and (hob-)goblins are all described as tending away from good alignments while no alignment tendencies are attributed to changelings, humans, elves, dwarves or gnomes.
 
Last edited:

Harlander

Almost determinedly non-useful
RPGnet Member
Validated User
I assume that's cannibalism (eating 'people') as a matter of course, as opposed to an act of desperation in dire straits.
 
Top Bottom