Forums of the Megaverse®

I have been pondering the Chiang-ku's ability to transform itself. I am wondering how other people have handled it, what sort of limits you have placed on it, or even just what your general thoughts are on some of these questions.


So the book states that a Chiang kus metamorphosis can last indefinitely, which is great, and it also says that they can transform into any living creature between the size of its own normal size and that of a house cat.

But what constitutes a "living creature"?

Do plants count?
Coral?
In phase world we have the Machine People, clearly not organic but I dare say they would be rather insulted by anyone suggesting that they are not "alive". Could the dragon transform into one of them?

Could they mix and match? For instance, could they make themselves look like a normal human being except replace one of the hands with a giant crab claw? What about simply changing the size of a normal living creature? Could they make themselves look like a house cat, except for feet tall? Could they add limbs that are not normally part of a species? A forearm human being? There are, after all, mutant humans in Rifts that may have all manner of strange additions or alterations to their physical body.

What about silicon-based life-forms?

If they can customize their appearance however they like, adding things or taking them away, is there any reason that they could not take the shape of two human beings that are connected by a tendril linking one body to another? Would that not still be a single form?

Would you limit them to taking the shape of any living thing that they have already encounter? For instance, taking on the shape of human beings because they have met human beings? Would it have to be something that they have seen, or something they have touched? Maybe tasted?

As for the limit on their maximum size, would you limit them based on Dimensions? Or Mass? What if they want to form some strange alien with large billowing gas sacs that are used to fly? That might take them far larger and then their normal dimensions, but certainly far less Mass wouldn't it?

And last but not least, what about their magic tattoos? I think there has been some discussion in another thread a boat whether or not a dragon loses their ability to transform after they gained seven or more tattoos, but what if they only have two or three? When they transform, do the tattoos disappear? Can they make the tattoos disappear if they want? What if they made themselves look like a human being only with a fold of the skin hiding the tattoos inside of themselves?

The way I use metamorphosis in games.
1) you must have encountered, personally, the entity in question
2) you become a 'generic' version of the entity (no perfect duplicates). They can not modify the race on the fly. Thus if you want to be a mutant human/Catgirl you need to encounter one first... and you wont look like that particular cat girl, but a generic one.
3) I am of the opinion that for something like a Chiang-Ku the being copied must be sentient, sapient, animate, and alive (my definition of alive is 'has life force' thus Machine People, golems, undead, and the like are out)
4) Tattoos will remain
5) I tend to not be fussy about size unless people try to weaponized it. Then I get picky.
6) I will freely say that I am inconsistent on things like turning into plants, coral, silicon life forms ect. THAT said I will make sure that the players know how I plan to roll at the start of the game so that everyone is on the same page. If there is a question in the middle of a game I tend to do one of two things. First I will make a fast, non-binding, off the cuff call for the situation at hand so we can continue on. Once we are no longer in the middle of the action I will have a discussion with the group about how we will proceed. I will take their input and advice on what the players think would be good and render a new, binding, decision at that time. Yes this sometimes means that you get a 'one shot' or you failed to make a legal change... so far every group has been fine with that and simply chalks it up to 'practice' or 'one in a million chance' or what ever.

I like Chiang-Ku a lot.

I agree that the phrase "any living creature" is ambiguous. However, I would, as a rule, keep this to "animals" (including humanoids, or other sentient/sapient "animals") and animal like supernatural creatures, which is also ambiguous, but less so, and any divergence would need to be argued on a case by case basis by the player.

EDIT: By my book now. It does actually say "any living animal." Furthermore, the dragon cannot metamorph into "inanimate objects or insects," but given the surrounding text, "insect" could mean "smaller than a raven or cat." However, "inanimate object" may change that interpretation of the sentence. An inanimate object could be any size, thus an inanimate object is limited due to its nature. An insect of any size therefore may also be right out simply because the laws of magic make it so, or whatever. What constitutes an "inanimate object" is up for debate. However, because "animal" is indeed the word used, we can argue that trees, coral, wacky-waving-inflatable-tube-men, etc. are "inanimate" and not possible.

Chiang-ku do not lose magical ability when receiving any amount of tattoos. EDIT: (so you dont have to read through a thread from the bio-pits of Hades) http://palladiumbooks.com/forums/viewto ... &start=150
(In short, Kevin stated explicitly on Facebook that Chiang-Ku do not suffer magic power/ability loss from Tattoos, unlike humans, etc. If you don't like it, don't do it, but there are canon examples in support of Kevin's "official" statement).

Tattoos remain upon metamorphosis. I imagine that they can be somewhat hidden if your skin/fur/feathers are dark, and the light isn't shining on them just right, but I would rule that if you're a tiger, your stripes are broken by shapes, and if you're a polar bear you're a very colorful and/or "spotted" one. EDIT: The text gives the distinction between human/humanoid form and dragon form. In the former, the tattoos are "very visible." In the latter, they are "far less obvious." It is up to you to determine how visible tattoos are in any other form and for what reasons.

An issue arises in mist form: clearly they cannot have visible tattoos. If they are low level they may not be able to manipulate tattoos in mist form because they cannot touch the tattoos. Higher levels would be GM decision (and may depend on the tattoo--like, the mist isn't going to wield a sword or ride a tiger).

You can copy any "creature" even unto disguising yourself as an individual example, but for the fact that the tattoos are always visible. You could copy a Machine Person to the extent that it is a humanoid with some coloring. Any humanoid can be so copied, as long as one remembers that none of the abilities of that humanoid are also copied. So you would look like a Machine Person with tattoos. You are still a dragon in every other way. EDIT: this ability to copy is explicit, and you start at base 10% +5%/level. There are other RCCs that can metamorph and I believe they can use skills to up their accuracy (someone can find that please--check changelings and Auto-Gs). I would allow the disguise skill to be used.

I think dimension should be used as the limitation, not mass, but mass may be used to determine MDC WHICH CHANGES. Or you could use both mass and dimensions to come up with limitations on a case by case basis if it comes up. We are only given the examples of dragon form and human form. Mass changes. MDC changes.

You could limit the metamorphosis to "actual" species, so your weird form of a double-person-connected-by-tendril would be out. However, I think the ability to transform into mist is an example of the suggestion in the text that few creatures if any in Palladium have metamophosis abilities as significant as the Chiang-Ku. Mist is not another spell, it's the incredible extent of their ability.

Nothing else changes with a metamorphosis by rule. Clothing is on the floor or ripped off, etc.


Your limitations by rule are "hatchling with few skills," "your tattoos do show at least to some extent," and "you can't take your stuff with you." Beyond that, if you, for instance, let a chiang-ku start with an OCC, and that OCC is something like a temporal wizard, it is an MDC temporal wizard with the ability to give itself all the tattoos over time and incredible powers of metamorphosis. Have fun being the baddest spy/assassin around.

I would just like to point out that the Machine People are not animals, and technically are not even alive.
They are fascinating machines, and are a good example of 'full AI'... but they are not 'alive' in that they have no aura, no PPE, no ISP, no CHI no blood, and apparently by implication... no souls (since souls have been tied to PPE/ISP/CHI which they do not have...)

The fact that they are limited to non-insect animals is a pretty narrow limiter right there...

The opinion on if you can duplicate individuals via metamorphosis is, as far as I know, canonically undefined, so that will be up to your GM to decide

eliakon wrote:I would just like to point out that the Machine People are not animals, and technically are not even alive.
They are fascinating machines, and are a good example of 'full AI'... but they are not 'alive' in that they have no aura, no PPE, no ISP, no CHI no blood, and apparently by implication... no souls (since souls have been tied to PPE/ISP/CHI which they do not have...)

The fact that they are limited to non-insect animals is a pretty narrow limiter right there...

The opinion on if you can duplicate individuals via metamorphosis is, as far as I know, canonically undefined, so that will be up to your GM to decide

The entry for Chiang-Ku explicitly allows a Chiang-Ku to copy individuals, as I pointed out. It's not an opinion.

I don't think a Chiang-Ku can become a machine. But neither can a Chiang-Ku become a human. A Chiang-Ku can look like a human. Perhpas looking like a machine person is a bridge too far for your game, but given the Chiang-Ku's amazing ability, and the vast diversity of "animals" in the rest of the megaverse, I figure they can make their metamorphosed skin look like pretty much whatever they want (without even going so far as to copy an individual).

But there could be some magical imposition preventing any given choice (like insects, if insects are excluded not because of size but because they're insects). Do what you like. Regardless, the Chiang-Ku has impressive abilities, from dragon, to cat, to mimicking an individual alien, to mist. There's an absurd amount of room there.

OTOH spiders aren't insects and some are larger than house cats.....

Sir_Spirit wrote:OTOH spiders aren't insects and some are larger than house cats.....

No, camel spiders are not actually spiders. The largest true spider giant huntsman spider has a leg span of up to 1 foot(12 inches). An average house cat has a head and body length of 18 inches. So the average house cat is bigger than the largest real spider.

I guess you could say more broadly that ARACHNIDS are not insects, camel spiders aren't insects.

Disallowing insects also disproves "any animal" since insects are technically part of the animal kingdom...

Is "raven" explicitly the smallest bird? If not, might want to go with the bee hummingbird (5.7cm) although the bumblebee bat is only 2.9cm.

Axelmania wrote:I guess you could say more broadly that ARACHNIDS are not insects, camel spiders aren't insects.

Disallowing insects also disproves "any animal" since insects are technically part of the animal kingdom...

Is "raven" explicitly the smallest bird? If not, might want to go with the bee hummingbird (5.7cm) although the bumblebee bat is only 2.9cm.

Chiang-Ku can "look like any living animal from human to raven." Also, "minimum size...is the size of a cat." Make of that what you will.

Wormwood is Alive. Can they turn into a very small planet?

Axelmania wrote:I guess you could say more broadly that ARACHNIDS are not insects, camel spiders aren't insects.

Disallowing insects also disproves "any animal" since insects are technically part of the animal kingdom...

Is "raven" explicitly the smallest bird? If not, might want to go with the bee hummingbird (5.7cm) although the bumblebee bat is only 2.9cm.

More accuartly not all arachnids are spiders. Camel spiders are not a spider despite the name, but they are a arachnids. Spiders are the largest order in the class, but it also includes scorpiens and a few othere order.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Wormwood is Alive. Can they turn into a very small planet?

Living but not really animal, pretty close to the 'inanimate" definition i would guess and certainly far beyond size parameters, so nope in many levels.

A cathedral? Who knows, probably not, but might be worth a try.