Would it work for a Vampire?

[Killer Cyborg]

Vampires are mystically vulnerable to light from the sun.
This has nothing to do with the physical properties of the light hitting them, so radiation, wavelength, brightness, etc. have no bearing on whether vampires are affected; only whether the light comes directly from the sun.

[Killer Cyborg]

Just put them in Env Armor.

Yup. That would do it.

Of course, they still go into a coma during the daytime, but it would keep them from getting burned up.

[cornholioprime]

Vampires are mystically vulnerable to light from the sun.
This has nothing to do with the physical properties of the light hitting them, so radiation, wavelength, brightness, etc. have no bearing on whether vampires are affected; only whether the light comes directly from the sun.

That's it in a nutshell, ceizyk.

I've heard of Game Settings and fictional worlds in Books and TV/Film (such as the "Blade" series) whereby vamps are vulnerable to the physical components of sunlight.

Rifts/Palladium Vamps simply aren't one of those kind.

[Northern Ranger]

I know it's against the "rules" of Palladium books, but the same people that write those books tell us that the rules are simply guidelines. So I'll answer this question with an example from my own gaming past. I've had a vampire character (a Secondary vampire who had been an Elven Illusionist and retained most of his powers) that was granted a talisman which protected him from the mystical effects of the suns rays. Thus, he was able to walk in direct sunlight and didn't lapse into a coma during the day. However, the down side was that his powers, abilities and strenght were greatly diminished under sunlight. It's a common thing, especially on Rifts and other such technological worlds, for technology to be able to do much the same as magic. Add to that the fact that you said it was also going to be magical (techno wizard item, I believe?) and I say go for it. After all, you're the GM. That makes you the God of Gods as far as your game is concerned. If you don't mind the player having the item, then that's all that really matters.

[asajosh]

Okies, barring the fact that I think vampies have a coma like state they go into during daylight hours (house rule about this aboard ship, do they keep the same hours as the crew? or are they somehow psychically synced up with the day/night cycle on the planet they were created on?), you are right that the sun is what does it. So they should be able to opperate in a spaceship lit by any artificial light no problem.

In the vacuum of space with no cover, they sholdn't go into mist form or they might instantly disperse or freeze (depending on the GM).

The forcefield to blot out daylight wouldnt be too hard to create (especially a TW version: shadow meld, energy field, armor of ithan maybe...) The downside is that the person inside cannot see (I dont have vampire kingdoms infront of me, but I dont believe they have any vision beyond what is known as "normal human vision"). If they have no special senses, then the FF would keep them from being burned, but they'd be blind.

In any case there is gonna have to be a lot of house rules on this one. Just keep it simple, keep it logical, and Good Luck

[asajosh]

Theres a vampire intelligence under center? is that in a book or something in your campaign?

[Tinker Dragoon]

Ceizyk might be thinking of the Dweller Beneath (an Alien Intelligence, not a Vampire Intelligence) that secretly lives under the Kreeghors' imperial palace (Phase World Sourcebook, pp. 29-30).

[asajosh]

Oh ya THAT one... I woulda remembered a vampire intelligence mentioned in the 3Gs hehe

[asajosh]

Oh ya THAT one... I woulda remembered a vampire intelligence mentioned in the 3Gs hehe

Curses, all this talk of Vamps in Space, now I just gotta roll on up... Maybe a Wampyr from Nightbane....

opps ment to edit, not quote myself

[The Beast]

I know it's against the "rules" of Palladium books, but the same people that write those books tell us that the rules are simply guidelines. So I'll answer this question with an example from my own gaming past. I've had a vampire character (a Secondary vampire who had been an Elven Illusionist and retained most of his powers) that was granted a talisman which protected him from the mystical effects of the suns rays. Thus, he was able to walk in direct sunlight and didn't lapse into a coma during the day. However, the down side was that his powers, abilities and strenght were greatly diminished under sunlight. It's a common thing, especially on Rifts and other such technological worlds, for technology to be able to do much the same as magic. Add to that the fact that you said it was also going to be magical (techno wizard item, I believe?) and I say go for it. After all, you're the GM. That makes you the God of Gods as far as your game is concerned. If you don't mind the player having the item, then that's all that really matters.

One of the D&D sets has a spell that allows just that sort of thing. Been meaning to convert it for my own games, but haven't really gotten around to it.

[DocS]

Vampires are mystically vulnerable to light from the sun.
This has nothing to do with the physical properties of the light hitting them, so radiation, wavelength, brightness, etc. have no bearing on whether vampires are affected; only whether the light comes directly from the sun.

Depends on the nature of the force field....

the spell "energy bolt" is blocked by force fields, and that's a mystic attack. so the question is "does the force field block the mystic thing in sunlight" that hurts vamps. Some mystic things are blocked, some aren't.

Or one could imagine a 'mystic' force field which blocks whatever the 'it' is in the light (but allows all the radiation, wavelength, brightness etc,) so your vampire could walk around in sunlight...but see just fine, with a mystic field.

And, as a sidenote, nowhere does it say Vampires are vulnerable to *starlight*, in fact, they are demonstrably invulnerable to it. So Vampires in space, anywhere other than around Earth.... are totally fine. If the rules are to be read literally. Only one 'star' is mentioned as being able to hurt vampires, and direct light from the literally billions and billions of innumerable *other* ones out there are demonstrably useless against Vampires.

Also, "Distance" from the sun is not mentioned, so "Sunlight" hurts the vamp no matter the distance. So on worlds far far away, their primary star has no effect on vampires, but there is another one in the night sky that when it comes out, the vampires whither and die. A pity for the vamps on planets where Earth's Sun is too faint to be visible, they don't know why The Night kills them so, but it does, so on these planets they're day creatures.

[asajosh]

I always assumed that vampires were only vulnerable to light from the sun of their homeworld.

Hmm could be a possibility

[Killer Cyborg]

Vampires are mystically vulnerable to light from the sun.
This has nothing to do with the physical properties of the light hitting them, so radiation, wavelength, brightness, etc. have no bearing on whether vampires are affected; only whether the light comes directly from the sun.

Depends on the nature of the force field....

the spell "energy bolt" is blocked by force fields, and that's a mystic attack. so the question is "does the force field block the mystic thing in sunlight" that hurts vamps. Some mystic things are blocked, some aren't.

Ah, but sunlight isn't mystic; it's the vampires that are mystic.

Or one could imagine a 'mystic' force field which blocks whatever the 'it' is in the light (but allows all the radiation, wavelength, brightness etc,) so your vampire could walk around in sunlight...but see just fine, with a mystic field.

I'll grant you that a field might be developed that warps the incoming light enough that it no longer counts as direct sunlight.

And, as a sidenote, nowhere does it say Vampires are vulnerable to *starlight*, in fact, they are demonstrably invulnerable to it. So Vampires in space, anywhere other than around Earth.... are totally fine. If the rules are to be read literally. Only one 'star' is mentioned as being able to hurt vampires, and direct light from the literally billions and billions of innumerable *other* ones out there are demonstrably useless against Vampires.

Also, "Distance" from the sun is not mentioned, so "Sunlight" hurts the vamp no matter the distance. So on worlds far far away, their primary star has no effect on vampires, but there is another one in the night sky that when it comes out, the vampires whither and die. A pity for the vamps on planets where Earth's Sun is too faint to be visible, they don't know why The Night kills them so, but it does, so on these planets they're day creatures.

Interesting line of thought.

The way I see it, the "sun" is whichever star is closest to them, so vampires everywhere have problems with daytime.

[The Beast]

I always assumed that vampires were only vulnerable to light from the sun of their homeworld.

Hmm could be a possibility

I always played it as the light of their "home star" as well. But that is a good question on wether or not distance plays into this at all.

[asajosh]

Okies my house rules on Vampires in space. Feel free to use, disect, alter, or disregard as you see fit.

1) In space, typically aboard ship, a vampire is in synch with the day/night cycle on the planet on which they were created. This means they must sleep appx. 8 consecutive hours per 24 cycle. In space, a vampire can be awakened during this sleep, however waking early leaves them groggy and disoriented; abilities and bonuses are halved.

2) On a planet's surface, a vampire becomes attuned to that planet's day/night cycle. They will be affected by that planet's star as if it were sunlight. Going planetside during the day means that vampire will fall into a coma like state within 1D10 minutes after entering the atmosphere.

3) Proximity to the vampire's home star in space (within the home star system) means death if exposed to the star's light! When traveling in his home system, a vampire will usually leave his ship on auto pilot or use non-vampire servants to pilot while he goes into a sealed chamber. This is the same for traveling in any star system. Outside the home star system, the light of the sun has less and less effect. 10ly and less away, damage taken from sunlight is halved. Up to 50ly away, the damage is 1/10th. Beyond 50 light years, the effect of the creature's home star is negligable, though in space they are still atuned to their home world's day/night cycle. Vampires can always spot their home star in another world's night sky, as long as its visible.

4) Vampires must always sleep with the soil of their homeland.

5) Humans and humanoid D-Bees (aliens) will have blood suitable for feeding a vampire. Its GMs discression if creatures with truely strange physiology can sustain a vampire.

6) Outside a star system, sufficiently distant from one's home star, a vampire CAN operate unshielded in the vacuum. The light level is no more then a very starry night to them. Transforming into mist is not recommended. The gas will disperse in the void and the vampire will effectively be destroyed!

7) In space they are obviously safe from fire. Water based weapons are of little use as the water will freeze. Silver and wood are the only practical weapons to fight a space-borne vampire. Or wait till they try and board your vessel.

Enjoy

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

your idea has enough sufficient handwaveium to satisfy most gamers I would think. If it works for you in your campaign go for it. A well thought out and semi-plausible idea is a wonder to creating a sense of realism to any game.

[DocS]

Ah, but sunlight isn't mystic; it's the vampires that are mystic.

Where does it say that?

The way I see it, the "sun" is whichever star is closest to them, so vampires everywhere have problems with daytime.

So they 'mystically' attune to the closest star? Where does it give this ability?

Or is it

I always assumed that vampires were only vulnerable to light from the sun of their homeworld

Both are possible, but very different in execution (one makes Vampires ROCK when they get off world... and is a great basis for campaign ideas.. the other makes Vampires a default sensor for detecting the *nearest* star. Is this how they find the nearest star in the UWW?). Both imply that there is only one star that can hurt a vampire.. which seems kind of odd.

Unless, of course, the rules are not exhaustive, at which point some extrapolation is needed. I much prefer the 'distance is a factor', so get a vamp close enough to any star, he'll fry, but out in space it's essentially 100% night sky, so he's OK. But again, that's extrapolation too. But once you throw a Vamp out in space... the GM needs to make the call, and Vamp Kingdoms could go several ways.

[DocS]

handwaveium

Love that word, am going to use it from now on

[Killer Cyborg]

Ah, but sunlight isn't mystic; it's the vampires that are mystic.

Where does it say that?

You need the books to explain that vampires are magical?

The way I see it, the "sun" is whichever star is closest to them, so vampires everywhere have problems with daytime.

So they 'mystically' attune to the closest star? Where does it give this ability?

Or is it

I always assumed that vampires were only vulnerable to light from the sun of their homeworld

Both are possible, but very different in execution (one makes Vampires ROCK when they get off world... and is a great basis for campaign ideas.. the other makes Vampires a default sensor for detecting the *nearest* star. Is this how they find the nearest star in the UWW?). Both imply that there is only one star that can hurt a vampire.. which seems kind of odd.

Unless, of course, the rules are not exhaustive, at which point some extrapolation is needed. I much prefer the 'distance is a factor', so get a vamp close enough to any star, he'll fry, but out in space it's essentially 100% night sky, so he's OK. But again, that's extrapolation too. But once you throw a Vamp out in space... the GM needs to make the call, and Vamp Kingdoms could go several ways.

Both are possible, but the one that I said is correct.

[lather]

I'll grant you that a field might be developed that warps the incoming light enough that it no longer counts as direct sunlight.

Sort of like atmosphere.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'll grant you that a field might be developed that warps the incoming light enough that it no longer counts as direct sunlight.

Sort of like atmosphere.

Obviously, atmospheres don't warp sunlight enough.
It would have to be something more akin to the effects of bouncing sunlight off the moon and turning it into moonlight.

[lather]

I'll grant you that a field might be developed that warps the incoming light enough that it no longer counts as direct sunlight.

Sort of like atmosphere.

Obviously, atmospheres don't warp sunlight enough.
It would have to be something more akin to the effects of bouncing sunlight off the moon and turning it into moonlight.

I guess I should have said more reflecting than warping.

Thus the 'sort of'.

Atmosphere does prevent a lot of direct sunlight. None of us would be here if it didn't.

[DocS]

Ah, but sunlight isn't mystic; it's the vampires that are mystic.

Where does it say that?

You need the books to explain that vampires are magical?

Nope, I need where it says that sunlight *isn't magical.

(on the basis behind exactly *which *star hurts vamps)

Both are possible, but the one that I said is correct.

Can you back that up either? Or are you just delcaring yourself right?

[Killer Cyborg]

Ah, but sunlight isn't mystic; it's the vampires that are mystic.

Where does it say that?

You need the books to explain that vampires are magical?

Nope, I need where it says that sunlight *isn't magical.

Good luck finding that.

I'll just settle for the complete and utter lack of any indication that it IS magical.

(on the basis behind exactly *which *star hurts vamps)

Both are possible, but the one that I said is correct.

Can you back that up either? Or are you just delcaring yourself right?

Just pointing out that I'm right.

[lather]

I'll just settle for the complete and utter lack of any indication that it IS magical.

So lack of indication is evidence?

[Killer Cyborg]

I'll just settle for the complete and utter lack of any indication that it IS magical.

So lack of indication is evidence?

Lack of evidence is indication.

Lack of indication means that there's no reason to believe that whatever isn't being indicated is true.

[asajosh]

Lack of indication means that there's no reason to believe that whatever isn't being indicated is true.

Lack of indication would mean that nothing is indicated.

What I think you meant was: Lack of EVIDENCE means there is no reason to believe what your being told.

But that simply isn't true...

[lather]

Indication and evidence (and the lack thereof) are the same thing.

[lather]

But lack of indication and lack of evidence is the same thing.

[Killer Cyborg]

Lack of indication means that there's no reason to believe that whatever isn't being indicated is true.

Lack of indication would mean that nothing is indicated.

What I think you meant was: Lack of EVIDENCE means there is no reason to believe what your being told.

But that simply isn't true...

Actually, I mean Indication.

[lather]

Lack of indication means that there's no reason to believe that whatever isn't being indicated is true.

Lack of indication would mean that nothing is indicated.

What I think you meant was: Lack of EVIDENCE means there is no reason to believe what your being told.

But that simply isn't true...

Actually, I mean Indication.

Doesn't matter. Same thing.

[Killer Cyborg]

Indication and evidence (and the lack thereof) are the same thing.

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

If somebody is acting nervous, it could indicate that they are hiding something.
But it's not evidence that they're hiding something.

[Killer Cyborg]

"The Absence of Evidence IS NOT Evidence of Absence!" *Rants*

Agreed.

But lack of indication begs the question of why the heck you believe something that there is not reasont to believe and that there is nothing to indicate is true.

[lather]

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

[Killer Cyborg]

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

Explain.

[lather]

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

Explain.

Because indication and evidence are interchangable.

It does not matter what arbitrary strength or weight you or I assign to these words.

[Killer Cyborg]

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

Explain.

Because indication and evidence are interchangable.

It does not matter what arbitrary strength or weight you or I assign to these words.

That is a great example of a random claim with neither evidence nor indication of any truth to it.

[lather]

The distinction I place is that indication isn't as strong as evidence.

Which would be incorrect.

Explain.

Because indication and evidence are interchangable.

It does not matter what arbitrary strength or weight you or I assign to these words.

That is a great example of a random claim with neither evidence nor indication of any truth to it.

As is yours. You have yet to demonstrate that evidence is stronger than indication, beyond merely stating your opinion.

• evidence
• evidence
• indication
• indication

A cursory search of the dictionary indicates what?

[Killer Cyborg]

That is a great example of a random claim with neither evidence nor indication of any truth to it.

As is yours. You have yet to demonstrate that evidence is stronger than indication, beyond merely stating your opinion.

Quite true.
Of course, nobody asked me for evidence.

• evidence
• evidence
• indication
• indication

A cursory search of the dictionary indicates what?

Yup.
Some definitions are the same, and some definitions aren't.
So it depends on which definition of each term you are going by.

What about it?

[lather]

Yup.
Some definitions are the same, and some definitions aren't.
So it depends on which definition of each term you are going by.

What about it?

The ones that say lack of indication and lack of evidence are the same.

Lack of indication that the sun is mystic.
Lack of evidence that the sun is mystic.

If there is a problem with that, let me know.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yup.
Some definitions are the same, and some definitions aren't.
So it depends on which definition of each term you are going by.

What about it?

The ones that say lack of indication and lack of evidence are the same.

Lack of indication that the sun is mystic.
Lack of evidence that the sun is mystic.

If there is a problem with that, let me know.

From your links:
Indication- "something that serves to indicate or suggest"
Evidence- "any information that tends to prove something."

As I said; it depends on which defintions of each term you are going by.

[lather]

So no problem with my assertion?

[Killer Cyborg]

So no problem with my assertion?

Restate it.

[lather]

So no problem with my assertion?

Restate it.

The ones that say lack of indication and lack of evidence are the same.

Lack of indication that the sun is mystic.
Lack of evidence that the sun is mystic.

[Killer Cyborg]

So no problem with my assertion?

Restate it.

The ones that say lack of indication and lack of evidence are the same.

Lack of indication that the sun is mystic.
Lack of evidence that the sun is mystic.

"The ones that say lack of indication and lack of evidence are the same" is not an assertion.
It's not even a whole sentence.

[lather]

So no problem with my assertion?

Restate it.

The ones that say lack of indication and lack of evidence are the same.

Lack of indication that the sun is mystic.
Lack of evidence that the sun is mystic.

"The ones that say lack of indication and lack of evidence are the same" is not an assertion.
It's not even a whole sentence.

Why does this have to be so complicated?

It has a subject and it has a verb; it is a sentence.

Alright here is the assertion again (I've only been saying it every other post):

Lack of indication that the sun is mystic.
Lack of evidence that the sun is mystic.
Both statements mean the same thing.

[asajosh]

Lather, KC:
Could you two maybe carry the symantic argument to PMs please?

[lather]

In my opinion...

It is not an argument.

It is relevant.... to something said back on Wednesday.

[Killer Cyborg]

"The ones that say lack of indication and lack of evidence are the same" is not an assertion.
It's not even a whole sentence.

Why does this have to be so complicated?

It has a subject and it has a verb; it is a sentence.

Nope.
Look up the term "Sentence fragment".

Alright here is the assertion again (I've only been saying it every other post):

Lack of indication that the sun is mystic.
Lack of evidence that the sun is mystic.
Both statements mean the same thing.

Wrong.
Both sentences can mean the same thing.
Depending on which definitions of each word you are going by.

But they can also mean different things.

As I pointed out earlier, when I showed you how different some of the definitions you linked to actually are.

[lather]

I guess that I need to go back to ESL class. Again. What relevance does complete sentences have anyway? Did you not understand me?

Both sentences can mean the same thing.
Depending on which definitions of each word you are going by.

So I wonder why you said this to me:

That is a great example of a random claim with neither evidence nor indication of any truth to it.

Like I said, the weight we arbitrarily give dictated by our opinion to one or the other is irrelevant. Even the context does not clearly differentiate. It is a human factor that differentiates because it can go either way.

That has been my point all along..

Lack of indication means that there's no reason to believe that whatever isn't being indicated is true.

Not quite. It means you may choose to believe that there's no reason to believe....