One of the big ideas for RotR was that there was going to be this relationship to the seven deadly sins. Yet, it kind of feels like that idea was never really developed. It started kind of strong with a discussion schools of magic related to the various sins. Then there were the sinspawn. The hauntings in the second issue had some aspects of sins to them. But after that it just kind of fell flat.
Yes, I know people are going to say, "But the whole greedy people's souls are going to empower the rise of the runelord and stuff." Yeah, but is there really anything significant in that? I mean could that be replaced with tatooing people that like broccoli, without any significant change in development?
Where is the sin magic? Where is the significance of the sinning? It just seems like something has been missed. I keep expecting to see something like the Seven Deadly Domains like in Dragon 323, or the Sinthrall template from Mansion of Shadows by Green Ronin (which I got thanks to the sale :D ). To be honest, I'd rather see some stuff like that, than the mating habits of some dragons, especially since I have no interest in the Guardians of Dragonfall module.
So let's see some more sin related stuff, some crunch if you know what I mean. Heck some Virtue of Rule stuff would also be nice.
I don't recall there ever being any mention that the AP would be linked to the sins in anything but background via the Runelords. Anyway, there's plenty if you look for it. The entire first adventure is the result of a handful of wrath-driven individuals. The second has elements of greed and lust. Hook Mountain has more greed and lust and some gluttony and sloth added in. Fortress of the Stone Giants is light on sin, though Sins of the Saviors should make up for that with a sevenfold dungeon based entirely on the seven sins.
|
One of the big ideas for RotR was that there was going to be this relationship to the seven deadly sins. Yet, it kind of feels like that idea was never really developed. It started kind of strong with a discussion schools of magic related to the various sins. Then there were the sinspawn. The hauntings in the second issue had some aspects of sins to them. But after that it just kind of fell flat.
Well, they did say to start paying attention to actions that your characters do that are related to particular sins, and even to keep a tally, because things in PF#5 would be easier or harder to pass through if your character was related to a particular sin. Traps that let a wrathful person pass for instance, or illusions of a harem only visible to a lustful person. (the first was mentioned [i think], the second is out of my head) so I would say to wait for the next adventure before you say this for sure - it is called "Sins of Our Saviors" after all
I don't recall there ever being any mention that the AP would be linked to the sins in anything but background via the Runelords.
I beg to differ.
Miscellaneous Crunch: Ah, the joy of the miscellaneous category! Here you'll find everything from new spells, rules, and feats tied to sin magic (a magic system tied to the seven deadly sins and utilized by the Runelords) to pieces on how to run and maintain your own keep or castle.
Anyway, there's plenty if you look for it. The entire first adventure is the result of a handful of wrath-driven individuals. The second has elements of greed and lust. Hook Mountain has more greed and lust and some gluttony and sloth added in. Fortress of the Stone Giants is light on sin, though Sins of the Saviors should make up for that with a sevenfold dungeon based entirely on the seven sins.
Yes, and as I said, so what? Who would have thought that evil creatures display many of the sinful attitudes? Creatures that "destroy or debase innocents for fun or profit" would be greedy or angry or lustful or whatever. But so what? Where is the tie to the mages. Why is tapping into the sinful nature of someone giving the runelord power? Most of the stuff sounds more like the RUNE part (due to the tatoos) then the SIN part (most of the people, though greedy are not excessively so).
Perhaps the various sins could be explored more fully, finding ways for the various foes (and NPC allies) to represent different sins. With a few minor alterations, the theme of deadly sins could be brought forward, until the players start to see different sins everywhere.
I hadn't tried to "punch up" the sins in this manner, but once the party sees a few "exemplary" NPCs, I'm confident that they'll soon start reading sins into every NPC's actions.
From there, we just need to tie the Runelords in more strongly. Some others may have tried similar magics in the millenia after the Runelords fell: Their unfortunate example might serve to increase the players' awareness of such magic. If pockets of such rune magic have appeared throughout history, only to fall in chaos and sin-induced destruction, the danger of the Runelords' return could be made more obvious.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The seven deadly sins are first and foremost themes for the Adventure Path. In some adventures, those themes will be stronger than others, since Rise of the Runelords is doing a lot of other stuff too; I didn't want to drown things in sin.
That said, the sin themes really don't kick into high gear until Pathfinder 5, wherein the PCs get to explore a dungeon based on the seven deadly sins and their actions (and sins) up to that point in the campaign will give them bonuses and penalties depending on what wing of that dungeon they're in. Pathfinder 5 also has a big "Magic of Thassilon" article in it that talks a bit more about the runelords' magic, as well as presenting seven new spells and a lot of new magic items. We'll have a big web enhancement for that article too that contains another 14 Thassilonian magic items.
In any event, the sin themes in Runelords, as I see them, go as follows:
Skinsaw Murders: Wrath/Lust/Envy (Aldern Foxglove), Gluttony (all those ghouls), Greed (the Skinsaw Murder victims)
Hook Mountain: Wrath/Lust (ogres), Greed (victims of Paradise), Lust/Envy (Kaven), Pride (the Black Arrows)
Fortress of the Stone Giants: Greed (giants, some of Sandpoint's folk), Wrath (giants)
Sins of the Saviors: All seven get LOTS of screen time in this one
Spires of Xin-Shalast: Greed (Karzoug, the Greed sword of sin, Xin-Shalast itself, dwarven miners); Gluttony (cannibals/wendigo), Wrath (giants, dragon), Lust/Pride (the runeforged weapons the PCs wield against Karzoug)[/b]
There's plenty more symbols hidden in the adventure as well, but those above should cover the main ones.
|
** spoiler omitted **
James you just confused me:
I think one trouble has possibly been all the different hands involved with the story, so it's grown a bit in the telling. I remember from the "Torture Porn" posts surrounding Hook Mountain that James was saying that number four was going to be super tied into Lust and would be exploring sexy themes sure to make people uncomfortable. Now for sure I haven't dug into Stone Giants enough to really see if there's something like that hidden in there or not--but most of what I get offhand is an Against the Giants flavored slugfest and a lot of Mokmurian backstory thrown in. Even the Cthuhlu stuff that people have been so excited about kinda' just got squeezed in as a footnote, the Hound of Tindalos, as sortova' boss' pet.
On one hand it's a shame, but on the other hand it's the price of doing business. You have a whole load of ideas to start with. Those change due to word count restrictions and the inclusion of other writers. Then they hit the gametable and different DMs add or take out stuff.
Also, when the cards are down I think the "sinny" stuff was making too many people mad. Hook Mountain caused a blowup and I think Pathfinder is new enough it can't take too many of these right out of the gate. Introducing the setting and getting people into and behind the product are really the most important things right now. Trying to make things super hardcore is fun, but it's gonna' turn off a load of people and they just can't be doing that at this point.
So yeah--I thing the story has changed into more of a typical adventure in structure and has lost a lot of the moral weight it started off with. On the other hand, read a non Paizo adventure sometime and you can just feel the awesome dripping flavor and amazing depth to the stuff they make...so I'm not sure I can complain much.
But, yeah, it has changed though.
|
Creative Director
|
James you just confused me:
Never fear...
|
Creative Director
|
I think one trouble has possibly been all the different hands involved with the story, so it's grown a bit in the telling. I remember from the "Torture Porn" posts surrounding Hook Mountain that James was saying that number four was going to be super tied into Lust and would be exploring sexy themes sure to make people uncomfortable.
Actually, when I mentioned that, I was talking about Pathfinder #5. In particular, the wing of the dungeon that is Lust themed. It's pretty racy.
Fortress of the Stone Giants was always intended to be the most self-contained of the six adventures; it still has SOME runelord/sin stuff, but it's more of a spiritual sequel to the Against the Giants adventures.
In any case, those looking forward to some scandal will probably have something to talk about when Pathfinder #5 comes along.
And to be fair, I'm not all that sure a LOT of people blew up about Hook Mountain. Pathfinder 3 went out to thousands and thousands of readers, after all... the "Torture Porn" thread had some vocal cries against it, but also had a fair amount of support for the adventure.
Remember too that we work on a schedule that's about two to three months ahead of time. When we got reader feedback on Pathfinder 3, we were almost ready to send off Pathfinder 5 to print and there wasn't anything that we could have done to react to the response to 3 in time for anything, really, but Pathfinder 6.
Remember too that we work on a schedule that's about two to three months ahead of time. When we got reader feedback on Pathfinder 3, we were almost ready to send off Pathfinder 5 to print and there wasn't anything that we could have done to react to the response to 3 in time for anything, really, but Pathfinder 6.
I know it is a bit off thread here, but did you react to the response for Pathfinder 6?
Also, I don't quite get the pride association in HMM that you referenced earlier in this thread. Can you explain it a little more? It seemed more lust than price to me.
|
Creative Director
|
I know it is a bit off thread here, but did you react to the response for Pathfinder 6?
Also, I don't quite get the pride association in HMM that you referenced earlier in this thread. Can you explain it a little more? It seemed more lust than price to me.
Taking the second first...
Pride's the hardest sin to wrap my head around. It's the least "evil" of the sins, in my mind, but it's also the one from which the other six are said, classically, to stem from. As a result, Pride's the sin that gets the least "screen time" in Rise of the Runelords. As for Hook Mountain... the rangers themselves grew complacent in their job; they were too proud to admit to themselves that the ogres of Hook Mountain could ever really hurt them—they were wrong, and paid for that pride. That whole element is pretty hidden in the text, though... it's not really there unless you read between the lines.
As for the first, yes, we are reacting to the response to Pathfinder 3, just as we've reacted to responses for 1 and 2 and now 4. And to responses to the GameMastery modules. I like to think that the responses we get from our customers are one of the better gauges we have as to how to build better RPG products. We're still learning how to do Adventure Paths, five years in from when we started, and we'll continue to refine and learn based on reader feedback.
In any event, the sin themes in Runelords, as I see them, go as follows:
** spoiler omitted **
There's plenty more symbols hidden in the adventure as well, but those above should cover the main ones.
Yeah, but at that point it becomes about as meaningful as a bunch of players sitting around and debating which D&D alignment best fits Captain Picard (ST:NG). I am really hoping to see all of the feats, magic, etc based on the Sin material that was suggested in that Blog post in April, in the next two books.
|
Something I don't get about the whole sin thing:
I'm wondering if goblins might wear tattoos identifying their tribe, but those tribes united by Nualia have also been marked with a Sihedron rune tattoo. Additionally, how to save the souls (longterm) of those marked in Turtleback Ferry?
Cheers :-)
As for Hook Mountain... the rangers themselves grew complacent in their job; they were too proud to admit to themselves that the ogres of Hook Mountain could ever really hurt them�they were wrong, and paid for that pride. That whole element is pretty hidden in the text, though... it's not really there unless you read between the lines.
Didn't the
have a lot to do with the fort falling? I just assumed that was an indirect way of using lust to get the job done. Or was the complacency in
|
Creative Director
|
Yeah, but at that point it becomes about as meaningful as a bunch of players sitting around and debating which D&D alignment best fits Captain Picard (ST:NG). I am really hoping to see all of the feats, magic, etc based on the Sin material that was suggested in that Blog post in April, in the next two books.
Those will mostly be appearing in Pathfinder 5. Seven new spells, seven new magic items, magic runes (seven there), runeforged weapons, and at least one or two feats.
Pathfinder 6 has a few more sin-related magic items. No more spells or feats.
AND: There's a web-enhancement for Pathfinder 5 that has an additional 14 or so magic items as well.
So there'll be LOTS of sin-related crunch to look through by the time Runelords comes to its end.
And, for the record, Picard is Lawful Good.
|
Creative Director
|
Something I don't get about the whole sin thing...
Answers:
As for the citizens of Turtleback Ferry, yeah, they're still marked and when they die of natural causes, they would indeed fuel the runewell of greed. BUT: Hopefully by that point, the PCs will have finished the last adventure and by that point it might not matter. Especially if the PCs mess up and Karzoug gets out, or if they destroy Karzoug or smash the soul lens.
And although it's not really made explicitly clear... runewells don't catch and imprison sinful souls. They simply "attract" them and "harvest" bits of sin from the soul, and then let that soul pass on to the afterlife (AKA Pharasma's Boneyard) for judgement and whatever awaits them there. Think of the Runewell as a big steaming cup of hot water, and a properly prepared sinful soul as a tea bag. When the soul dies, it dips into the water to make it a little more into tea before moving on to its just rewards. Each tea bag soul dips for just a brief moment before moving on, so it takes a LOT of tea bag souls to make that tea properly delicious. We leave the exact number vague, since it's no fun forcing the GM to track souls and that makes it REALLY tough to stage the last adventure so it's properly dramatic.
|
Creative Director
|
Didn't the
** spoiler omitted **
have a lot to do with the fort falling? I just assumed that was an indirect way of using lust to get the job done. Or was the complacency in
** spoiler omitted **
Yup.
Like I said, Pride's role in this campaign is atrophied and not all that present. Lust certainly did have a stronger role in setting them up for a fall... but Pride was in there working as well.
As for the first, yes, we are reacting to the response to Pathfinder 3, just as we've reacted to responses for 1 and 2 and now 4. And to responses to the GameMastery modules. I like to think that the responses we get from our customers are one of the better gauges we have as to how to build better RPG products. We're still learning how to do Adventure Paths, five years in from when we started, and we'll continue to refine and learn based on reader feedback.
I was a bit put off by the vagueness of your answer until I looked at my post. I accidentally omitted the work 'how' from the sentence "I know it is a bit off thread here, but HOW did you react to the response for Pathfinder 6?" I was curious as to what changes you may have made along the way.
You know, the PCs are more likely to embody the sin of "pride" than anything else in Rise in the Runelords, so I hope that is taken into account.
...could the sin harvesting actually be good for a soul? You arrive in the Place of Judgement missing a few little bits of unpleasantness...
|
|
Thanks for all the advice in this thread, James. These clarify a lot of things, and help us run a better game.
I particularly like the teabag analogy :-) Though ...
...could the sin harvesting actually be good for a soul? You arrive in the Place of Judgement missing a few little bits of unpleasantness...
Yeah, this occurred to me also.
|
Creative Director
|
You know, the PCs are more likely to embody the sin of "pride" than anything else in Rise in the Runelords, so I hope that is taken into account.
The way most PCs act when they get in a group... I'd have to nominate Greed as the big PC sin over anything else.
PC: SO, how much can we get for the orc's suit of leather armor, even though it's torn?
GM: Dude, you're 10th level.
PC: So? How much?
|
Creative Director
|
I was a bit put off by the vagueness of your answer until I looked at my post. I accidentally omitted the work 'how' from the sentence "I know it is a bit off thread here, but HOW did you react to the response for Pathfinder 6?" I was curious as to what changes you may have made along the way.
If you're looking for exact examples, well, I've made sure that Designer Note sidebars are more often appearing in adventures, giving us a chance to explain WHY we decided to have something particularly mature in an encounter and to give some examples how a GM might adapt said encounter for a younger audience. And in other cases, I've been more aware of editing gratuitous violence and mayhem. In some cases, the gore is justified. In some, it's not; I'm making sure that if we DO get nasty, it's for a reason.
The way most PCs act when they get in a group... I'd have to nominate Greed as the big PC sin over anything else.
PC: SO, how much can we get for the orc's suit of leather armor, even though it's torn?
GM: Dude, you're 10th level.
PC: So? How much?
Very true, is that why
|
|
You know, the PCs are more likely to embody the sin of "pride" than anything else in Rise in the Runelords, so I hope that is taken into account.The way most PCs act when they get in a group... I'd have to nominate Greed as the big PC sin over anything else.
Oh, I don't know.
|
Creative Director
|
To add to earlier requests, it would be useful to know what effect having a soul partially 'harvested' by a rune-well might have, given that there is at least one Sihedron medallion which PCs may acquire in 'Burnt Offerings', and a ('sinful') PC may very well die wearing it.
Edit: Also, what happens where an individual has more than one, equally 'strong' traits of sins? Does the 'tea-bag' (brilliant metaphor) get 'dunked' in each qualifying rune-well in turn, or only in the geographically closest one? EG A Wrathful and Greedy PC wearing a Sihedron medallion (the hypothetical PCs haven't had the information to have figured out yet by this point that Sihedron marks might be BAD) gets killed by 'His Lordship' in Sandpoint in 'The Skinsaw Men'. What happens?
A character who dies and has his soul dipped in the runewell can be brought back to life normally. There's no lasting game effect from having the runewell harvest a portion of your sin, although you might want to do some flavor effects; perhaps describing to the resurrected PC a sense of being savaged or tortured by something shadowy and golden while he was dead...
And you'll never have to worry about a character having multiple strong sins being "split" between runewells. There's no runewells close enough to each other that that'll ever be a problem. And the soul lens attached to the runewell of greed trumps any other sin that a "marked" soul might have. And since there's really no game effect on the soul, and there's not really a mechanic for tallying souls in a runewell... even if it WERE to be a problem, it wouldn't really matter.
|
When it comes to the sin of pride, I personally saw this as being the dominate theme or one of them at least in Fortress of the Stone Giants. It is pride compelling the younger giants to gather as an army as much as greed. Culturally they want to feel significant and they cannot imagine defeat at the hands of the short folks.
In my home game, the PCs asked Quint about Thassilon, what he knew, etc. I rolled well and he explained that the empire had been divided into seven sections ruled over by rune lords. He knew the names of only two but his readings indicated that the seven "classical" (classical in Varisia) virtues had been twisted and the rune lords each worshipped sin. Karzoug was the Rune Lord of greed.
With just this little bit of information, when they found the golden pillar of coins, they immediatelly made the connection to greed. They are a bit confused by how it all ties together (having discovered a rune well of wrath so close to town) but my oldest son, all on his own, has decided he needs to avoid avarice so as not to attract the wrong sort of magics to himself.
And the soul lens attached to the runewell of greed trumps any other sin that a "marked" soul might have. And since there's really no game effect on the soul, and there's not really a mechanic for tallying souls in a runewell... even if it WERE to be a problem, it wouldn't really matter.
So basically you could mark and do the ceremony on anyone, because everyone has some bit of greed in their soul (someone with Vow of Poverty, might be immune). Just that the more greedy have a stronger "flavor" in their teabag?
|
Creative Director
|
So basically you could mark and do the ceremony on anyone, because everyone has some bit of greed in their soul (someone with Vow of Poverty, might be immune). Just that the more greedy have a stronger "flavor" in their teabag?
Nope; it pretty much has to be someone who's a legitimate greedy sinner. Just any old person won't cut it; the runewells harvest a relatively small portion of sin, so unless that person is particularly sinful, the amount gained won't make a difference. It pretty much has to be a miser, a greedy merchant, a thief, a treasure hoarder (like most dragons), a gambler (like the fine folk of Turtleback Ferry), or someone like that.
My PCs are slowly learning about the goblins sent to attack Sandpoint during the Swallowtail festival, and one fact I'm trying to plant is that they were all angry. Those who weren't habitually mad were specifically provoked to be in a temper during the attack.
The dominant sin of the goblin PCs is unquestionably gluttony. I've stopped bothering to keep track. :)
|
|
And, for the record, Picard is Lawful Good.
One of the many reasons Sisko is the best Captain. "Oh you Maquis won't surrender? I'll just destroy the ecosystem of this entire colony. I suggest you surrender before I get to the next one."
Question in spoiler:
As for the runewell deaths - I assumed that the runewells sort of leaked or lost a certain degree of "soulfuel" over the years, so if you had people (like the population of turtleback ferry) die spread out over time, you would loose "energy" in between each death, while wiping them out in one fell swoop gives the runewell a mighty charge all at once. Never really bothered me, because basically one can always come up with a some logic why people have to die in one cataclysm.
Maybe the marks loose power over time (especially if people mend their ways ), perhaps there is an enhancement effect if sevreal people die at once in one location... whatever sounds most reasonable to the GM and the players.
As for the "sin" theming - I always supposed that was deliberately left somewhat vague due to differing degrees of tenderness in the pathfinder community. Some like it steamy and straight to the eye, others prefer some lighter shade of sin and others feel even uncomfortable with it being mentioned.
Looking at the reactions to the violence and wickedness in HMM from some people here on the boards, There are some very sensitive, easily riled people around who seem to have no complaints when it comes to the heroes butchering tribes of monstrous humanoids, infants, non-combatants and all, but get squeamish when the "monsters" take a page from that book and act despicably on their victims..... Ever wondered why they are "monsters" ? To quote "Batman Begins" "...it's what I do that defines me". could be the Graul's family motto =)
As for the rangers and "pride" - to my mind, their attitude of "that can't happen to us" was pretty much what made the treachery of one of their number so potent and effective, so pride/vanity was certainly involved. Something that has seen little use - to my mind - in the AP so far is "Envy" ... but that is easily added through social intercourse.
|
i like what Vikingson said alot, in defining the sins as they've appeared (i also liked JJ's explanation as well, btw). i also feel that envy has been a little light in it's appearance, but let's not forget that Nualia had/has a lot of envy in her (the one thing she could never be - normal) and Tsuto as well (he was/is envious of the relationship his sister had/has with her father, something he could never have).
|
Pride's the hardest sin to wrap my head around. It's the least "evil" of the sins, in my mind, but it's also the one from which the other six are said, classically, to stem from. As a result, Pride's the sin that gets the least "screen time" in Rise of the Runelords.
I think pride is the translation used in the King James Bible. Since then the language has developed and pride has taken on more worthy aspects. Looking here you can see how a 1913 dictionary shows pride in a far less kindly light than a more modern publication - extrapolate back another few hundred years and the only pride you've got to deal with is conceited, arrogant, vainglorious and selfish presumption.
The most obvious way to manifest pride as a sin in-game would probably be a man of some wealth and/or influence who casually crushes the life of a poor person just because they accidentally made him/her look foolish. Like a wealthy patron telling a restauranteur to sack a waiter because she missed his raised eyebrow and served somebosy else first.
|
|
The most obvious way to manifest pride as a sin in-game would probably be a man of some wealth and/or influence who casually crushes the life of a poor person just because they accidentally made him/her look foolish. Like a wealthy patron telling a restauranteur to sack a waiter because she missed his raised eyebrow and served somebosy else first.
this may sound corny but: When I try to produce a prideful character, I rewatch the beginning of Disney's Aladdin.... especially the prince on the horse going to the palace to court Jasmine...
I decided that I didn't care about secrecy as much as I cared about flavor, so I've been talking about sins with my player ever since #1: what's each PC's dominant sin? How does this-and-that event relate to the sins? (We find the Gluttony/Greed distinction difficult.) The PCs are all Thassilonian scholars, so it's not out of character for them to think about this too.
The player is disappointed not to have seen more sinspawn, but otherwise is fairly happy with the sin theme's prominance. (We have not played #5 yet.)
I'm going to have to diverge on how the Runewells work, though. The modules don't say, and there's (to my mind) strong circumstantial evidence in #2 that being ritually marked prevents you from rising as undead, suggesting that the Runewell has your whole soul. (The people Aldern kills should rise as ghouls, and the unmarked ones do, but the marked ones don't.) So that was the way I played it. If you are Sihedron-marked (not just wearing a Sihedron medallion, though) you can't be raised, you can't be made undead, you are *gone* when you die. Breaking the Runewell would be the only recourse.
It led to a scene early in #4 where Aldern was sitting up at night with the giants he'd killed, waiting for them to rise as huge ghouls, and at midnight realized that it wouldn't happen because *Karzoug had beaten him to it.* He was furious. The PCs were...disturbed.
The PCs understand about Sihedron marks, and they have set the priest in Turtleback Ferry to removing them with remove curse; they also plan to un-mark the whole giantish army, and are trying very, very hard not to kill any giants. It is a good thing the module isn't keeping score, as I don't think my Karzoug would ever make progress at this rate!
Mary
I'll have to disagree on the whole-soul point, in a minor way. The runewell, in my view, certainly takes the whole soul for a dip, indeed has to "physically" transport the soul to its location to do so, thus preventing its use in most forms of undead. There's no need to say the soul is destroyed or doomed to stay in the well afterward. (That said, of course, go with what works for you and your game.)
|
Creative Director
|
I probably should have been a little more clear, I guess, but those souls that end up going to a runewell aren't lost. They swirl around inside there for a few instants and then move on. Nothing prevents that body from rising as undead or being resurrected. The runewell doesn't actually hurt or destroy a soul.
I probably should have been a little more clear, I guess, but those souls that end up going to a runewell aren't lost. They swirl around inside there for a few instants and then move on. Nothing prevents that body from rising as undead or being resurrected. The runewell doesn't actually hurt or destroy a soul.
I understand what you're saying, but for us the opposite decision added to Karzoug's stature: someone who would burn souls for power is truly greedy.
So, why *didn't* Aldern's victims rise as ghouls at midnight?
Also, is there any cosmological explanation for what _gentle repose_ does? The more we think about this spell, the more it bothers us. Especially as my PCs are seriously thinking about trying _raise dead_ on the 40-foot giant in #3. Has his soul been trapped in that frozen corpse for 10,000 years? That's major-league necromancy, that is.
Mary
I am much more happy with the magic content in 5th issue. I am going to drop a scroll of Blood Money into my game as it is something that my transmutation wizard PC would love.