Never trust a mage that still has all his fingers, never trust a mage with fewer than 4

>never trust a mage that still has all his fingers, never trust a mage with fewer than 4.

What about a mage who has extra fingers ?

>Never trust a mage

Depends on how many hands he has

>Never trust a rogue with a purse full of gold, never trust a rogue with an empty one

*Never trust a mage who has his original fingers, never trust a mage with fewer than 4 (unless he has tentacles those are digit efficient.)
Any other rules that should be added?

I don't trust most mages with tentacles, to be honest.

>Never trust

Never trust a mage with more fingers than his physiology should allow.

>never

>never trust a finger with more than one mage attached to it

Oh please, only maybe half of them want to consume your brains or toss you into eldritch monstrosities maws
A mage that is constrained by his physiology is a charlatan, but a mage that breaks it apart is usually a snowflake, so I'm not sure.
shared fingers are quite devious folk.

>never trust a mage with hands for feet or feet for hands

Never trust a paladin who is all covered in blood. Never trust one that is perfectly clean.

>Never trust a mage

Why does a mage lose fingers?

Explosions?

Honestly Lev Grossman's pretty damn overrated.

>Never trust a bard that can't entertain you, and never trust a bard that can

>implying you have a choice to trust or not

BUT HE REALY LOVES ME, WE'RE GONNA GET MARRIED ONCE HE COMES BACK AND IT"S GONNA SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS FOREVER AND EVER BECAUSE HE LOVES MMMEEEEEEEEEEE