Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:30 pm**

Easy fix: if Gleba made a DB10 reference to reincarnating Gargoyles, those were special cases where a Lord used his/her deific power to transform the Gargoyle into a Lesser Demon, or where the Gargoyle had changed into a Death Demon. Problem solved

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:46 pm**

Axelmania wrote:Easy fix: if Gleba made a DB10 reference to reincarnating Gargoyles, those were special cases where a Lord used his/her deific power to transform the Gargoyle into a Lesser Demon, or where the Gargoyle had changed into a Death Demon. Problem solved

If it's a death demon, refering to it as a Gargoyle still would be wrong.

You seem really fond of Death Demons for some reason, given how often you keep bringing them up. They're a cut-rate borg, at best, and a moderately more powerful zombie hoard at worst. Being able to infect others to turn them into one of themselves is cute, but it's really not meaningfully different in concept from a giant demon spider that can spit a poison at you that paralyzes you while it wraps you up and implants it's eggs in you. Nor is it that much more dangerous. They have to actually bite you, and the bite has to draw blood. So right away you get to argue about how easy it is to draw blood with their fangs. What about a dragons scales? How much damage does a bite have to do to draw blood?

Anyone using any kind of magical or enviromental armor is pretty safe from a death demon, their bite's damage is pretty pathetic and the don't exactly blend in with the population the way Vampires do, nor do they have much going for them by way of approaching a hostile enemy except shadow meld. So basically some nice camp lights and armed guards can hold off an army of death demons without a great deal of trouble.

Oh. Lets not forget the Drawing Blood part is good in another way: Death Demons are pretty useless against full conversion cyborgs who don't even have blood and are just brains inside a jar. Attack robots are also good.

Basically, let a Triax mixed army of Cyborgs and Dyna-bots loose on the Death Demons, they could be wiped out in pretty short order sinse both are completely immune to being infected. Not like the other demons like them enough to help them out, they're barely tolerated as it is.

Any other creature which is powerful but doesn't bleed when bitten is likewise good. Why not get Tolkeen's remants back to call up another army of a few thousand Elementals? Lesser or greater would have a feild day trashing them, and elementals are likewise immune from being cursed because they don't bleed.

Their only real threat is their leader is trying to get the Four Horsemen back to Rifts Earth, and the real threat of that is the Four Horsemen themselves coming out togeather at a Hell Gate. The Death Demons are just another minor undead minion in their army at that point, considering how the four horsemen are a big enough threat without their help.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:55 pm**

Curbludgeon wrote:In what way is an offhand comment on an unrelated thread official? Even those Rifter articles that are to be assumed as such from then on are only "official." The most Gleba would have been able to do in that thread is apologize.

I take issue with the epistemological leap that because PB staff are unable or unwilling to produce indexable errata players are empowered to cobble together their own.

If the Rifter material says that it is Official, then it is official.
There is no "well I don't feel it is as official as other stuff"
Everything in the Rifter is optional...unless it is made official, at which time it is exactly that.
There is no 'levels of officialness'

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:37 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:Just because scholars think something does not make it true.

The statement on the serpent slayer does seam to be calling them SN.

I think a more accurate statement is RUE changed how SN is defined.-It was a change to the core rules after all.
The wording itself says all SN not X Y or Z, so it does as written apply to all. But the wording would kind have removed many pre-existing SN from being SN if treated as blanket statement and change of how the term was defined.

I propose this compromise based on the text.
1 all creatures listed as SN with a life span be treated as miss labeled CoM do to a change in the rules about classification.
2 all creatures that have SN abilities and or innate RCC magic and are immortal are SN and reform when killed off their native plane.
(this means no mortal SN reforming when killed.)

Is this acceptable?

Seeing these additional examples you guys sited from newer post-RUE material is starting to convince me of Blue Lions proposal that RUE published a blanket retcon in the definition of Supernatural Being.

Your examples in the spoiler below.

Spoiler:

At first I thought it was a kind of typo or editing error that wasn't caught in review, but with these repeated sentiments in newer books, it is clear that they meant to define supernatural beings as demons and immortal beings from other dimensions that reincarnate in their own dimension when slain in ours. As I stated in my previous post there are a multitude of published material in earlier works referring to supernatural beings that disagrees with, or is not compatible with this new definition.

My previous post in the spoiler

Spoiler:

DD The Shmey wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:dragons are quoted in many places as creatures of magic and not super natural beings

Perhaps your RUE quotes only pertain to the new species in RUE.

Dragons and Gods:
*pg 14 "bites of a dragon will do full damage to other supernatural creatures, including other dragons"
*pg 87 "a god can tell whether someone is an ordinary mortal, a supernatural creature (for example, a dragon taking the form of a human) or another god"

Or else we're back to "being and creature mean different things but I can't tell you what, or where they are every explicitly described as different" type arguments.

I find it silly that people are suggesting that dragons are not supernatural creatures when they are the most commonly cited examples of supernatural creatures within the Rifts books.

I started paging through a few Rifts books looking for example references and everywhere I looked I saw citations listing dragons as supernatural creatures. I also saw a bunch more other things described as supernatural beings, and supernatural creatures.

If I may add to your list, and this is by no means exhaustive.
WB2 Atlantis page 33 - "Most scholars in the arts of magic will agree that dragons, like the Splugorth, are supernatural beings who are masters of magic and dimensional travel. "

WB2 Atlantis page 17 under The Undead Slayer OCC there is a strong implication that Minions of the Splugorth are also supernatural - "... they are the trans-dimensional hunters and slayers of supernatural evil know as undead slayers. Their archenemies are vampires, vampire intelligence, and the minions of the Splugorth."

WB2 Atlantis pg 26 "Note: Remember, gargoyles and their relatives are supernatural predators ..."

WB21 Splynn pg 144 under corrupted millennium weapon Serpent-Slayer "... but inflicts double damages against dragons and other supernatural serpents."

I thought I would find more clear definitions of dragons as supernatural creatures in the write up for the Dragon Juicer ooc, but the closest I could find was under the insanity table WB10 Juicer Uprising pg49 - "Obsessed with fighting and killing dragons and other supernatural beings."

After looking at the Dragon Juicer, I checked the Mega-Juicer and found WB10 Juicer Uprising pg36 - "In the ppe rich world of Rifts Earth, the Mega-Juicer process creates a minor supernatural creature."

...

Due to all of these examples and many more, it is safe to say that the phrasing of the paragraph that VIsgar cited was made in error. Any implications drawn from this paragraph should be disregarded in any discussion of what is and is not a supernatural creature according to the Rifts setting.
I believe that the error of this paragraph was in its use of the word "being" instead of intelligence. That the title of the paragraph "Demon's, Gods, & Supernatural Beings" should have read as "Demon's, Gods, & Supernatural Intelligence" in the same vein as page 205 of the original Rifts Conversion Book.

Also I was under the impression that the phrases "creature of magic" and "supernatural creature" were used almost interchangeably. I know that creature of magic is more often used when talking about faerie folk
and some of the creatures from greek mythology that typically have a large ppe base and natural spell casting ability, whereas supernatural creature seems to be a term used more generally. I am less sure about the distinction between creature of magic and supernatural creature/being. I certainly don't believe that that the terms are mutually exclusive as dragons are described both creatures of magic and supernatural beings.
Axelmania wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:I would also point out that while there is a general rule that supernatural creatures are immortal. Super natural creatures with a life span cam exist as an acceptation to that general rule. (there are even creatures listed as both creatures of magic and super natural such as the tengo.)

It sounds like more of a guideline (moreso intended for greater supernatural beings) than a rule.

Yeah, maybe "greater supernatural being" might be something that you could use to describe a class of entities that includes demons, devils, gods, alien intelligences, elemental intelligences, and other entities that might fit the description of that quote in RUE pg277.

I will continue to maintain that prior to RUE, the published material defined supernatural being in much closer to what Eliakon and Nekira Sudacne defined it - if a being has supernatural attributes, powers, and abilities, then it is a supernatural being. This is consistent with the books references to Gargoyles, Dragons, Mega Juicers, and many others creatures called supernatural beings/creatures. I have even seen minions of the splugorth referred to as supernatural monsters in the books in multiple places - remember that the majority (67%) of the minions of the Splugorth on Atlantis are Kydians and Kittani which are both SDC creatures that possess supernatural strength and endurance.

Spoiler:

This apparent change to the definition of supernatural beings does raise some troubling questions. Lets say there is a magic sword or a spell that was published in one of these earlier pre-RUE works that has a statement that says it deals double damage vs supernatural beings. I would be a strong proponent that we would treat this statement in its original context and rule that it deals double damage to dragons and gargoyles, despite the fact that under the new rules they technically do not meet the current definition of supernatural beings. What do you guys think?

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:49 am**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:If it's a death demon, refering to it as a Gargoyle still would be wrong.

Naw, just because the new classes' stats overwrite your original race doesn't mean the original race doesn't matter. Like with Cosmo-Knights!

Nekira Sudacne wrote:You seem really fond of Death Demons for some reason, given how often you keep bringing them up. They're a cut-rate borg, at best, and a moderately more powerful zombie hoard at worst.

Borgs don't regen 2d6/round, get free shadow meld and dimensional teleport, summon 1-6 ghouls a day, animated dead bodies, see invisible or reach through keyholes using ectoplasm.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Being able to infect others to turn them into one of themselves is cute, but it's really not meaningfully different in concept from a giant demon spider that can spit a poison at you that paralyzes you while it wraps you up and implants it's eggs in you. Nor is it that much more dangerous.

Giant demon spiders are giant. Death Demons are only 10% larger than they were in life. There's no minimum size for races which can be turned. The closest thing to this kind of potential is the Lasae.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:They have to actually bite you, and the bite has to draw blood. So right away you get to argue about how easy it is to draw blood with their fangs. What about a dragons scales? How much damage does a bite have to do to draw blood?

It explicitly requires "Hit Point Damage" to draw blood. MDC is horrible.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Anyone using any kind of magical or enviromental armor is pretty safe from a death demon, their bite's damage is pretty pathetic and the don't exactly blend in with the population the way Vampires do, nor do they have much going for them by way of approaching a hostile enemy except shadow meld. So basically some nice camp lights and armed guards can hold off an army of death demons without a great deal of trouble.

They know Shadows of Death / Shadows of Doom to help with the lighting.

As for locked armor... becoming a Death Demon makes you an inherently skilled lock-picker and escape artist, so they could probably use those skills to get past your tech barricades.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Oh. Lets not forget the Drawing Blood part is good in another way: Death Demons are pretty useless against full conversion cyborgs who don't even have blood and are just brains inside a jar. Attack robots are also good.

They aren't the ideal solution to the Mechanoids, but that's not most societies.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Basically, let a Triax mixed army of Cyborgs and Dyna-bots loose on the Death Demons, they could be wiped out in pretty short order sinse both are completely immune to being infected. Not like the other demons like them enough to help them out, they're barely tolerated as it is.

They just dimensional teleport away, then dimensional teleport back into the local nursery.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Any other creature which is powerful but doesn't bleed when bitten is likewise good. Why not get Tolkeen's remants back to call up another army of a few thousand Elementals? Lesser or greater would have a feild day trashing them, and elementals are likewise immune from being cursed because they don't bleed.

Shadow Meld and run away, teleport. Enter vulnerable areas you wouldn't want to send Elementals to defend because oc collateral.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Their only real threat is their leader is trying to get the Four Horsemen back to Rifts Earth, and the real threat of that is the Four Horsemen themselves coming out togeather at a Hell Gate. The Death Demons are just another minor undead minion in their army at that point, considering how the four horsemen are a big enough threat without their help.

I was checking db10p187 but am too tired to remember where it mentioned that.

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:09 pm**

It's in Megaverse in Flames. The Leader of the death demons is a Galu Demon Bull Hell Lord and Leader of one of the primary invasion forces. But once he got infected, he actually accepted a deal to become an Avatar of Death the Horseman, which is interesting because right now He retains most of his free will, but eventually Death can actually use him as a vessel to fully enter the world in his body and take over completely. It also reveals that Death Demons are Death's minions and loyal to him, not to the Demons of Hades, even though they reincarnate in Hades, to throw much more fun on confusion of how demon reincarnation works exactly, as we have a cannonical example of one Demon Lord managing to infiltrate minions of his own creation into a Hell which he has no direct part in ((The Four Horsemen have their own native dimension ruled exclusively by them))

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:47 pm**

I knew I should've read more than just the Soulmancy spells... Zugard on 71 is certainly a gamechanger.

I don't understand why his horns could have rotted away though, pretty sure horns all have a bone core. Was author thinking they were like antlers or something?

Page 73's illustration by Nick Bradshaw has a thicc qt kneeling in front of him... am trying to figure out what species she might be.

*randomly flipping notices more thiccness on 82* Seductress (pg 83) perhaps? I'm not even sure where to find that RCC. Closest match is page 69's "Succubus/schemer/seductress" so perhaps it refers to Succubi? 82 says she's "Natural Abilities: Same as the Succubus," and she serves Mania who rules over the Succubi so I guess it makes sense.

Found something else interesting searching this book... page 116
Chaos Trooper Armor is primarily designed for the larger-framed supernatural beings such as Gallu, Baal-Rogs, Gargoyles, Deevils, Dragons, Horrors and Beasts.

That's the latest canon as of September 2015 right?

Posted: **Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:20 am**

Not really. Supernatural is also the usual collquialism for "Magical" and not "Supernatural being". So it's designed for supernatural beings lower case, which included all larged frames beings-who-are-magical, but not Supernatural Beings with the uppercase proper noun. Same way not every use of campaign in a book refers the ongoing game itself. Just because a particular word or phrase appears in the glossary doesn't mean every single use has that meaning, especially when they overlap with Colloquialisms and turns of phrase. Most of the confusion of what is and isn't a supernatural being comes from the colloquial use of refering to all magical creatures as Supernatural Beings, because "Supernatural" is just a nice word for it, while "Supernatural Being" as the specific meaning of a supernatural being with certain attributes still only refers to beings with those attributes.

Also for Siren, Page 83 clearly says "Formerly a succubus before being elevated to Hell Lord"

Remember Hell Lords are above Princes in power, meaning they've got enough worshipers to have begun their acendancy to Godhood and have at least 1 deific power each in addition to better stats and other unique powers. She was a Succubus, became Mania's lover, and has some deific power by now. Same with Zugard and the other Hell Lords. They are probablly on par with Dyval Regents with 1d4 Deific powers, but prehaps they simply lack the x3 cost for deific powers. the book isn't clear. But all hell Lords have so much unique stuff because they're former demons halfway to Demon Lords and so are developing unique apperances/identities of such.

Posted: **Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:28 pm**

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Not really. Supernatural is also the usual collquialism for "Magical" and not "Supernatural being". So it's designed for supernatural beings lower case, which included all larged frames beings-who-are-magical, but not Supernatural Beings with the uppercase proper noun.

I've never found these upper/lowercase arguments to hold much water. Page 29 for example uses lowercase when describing mechanics "Any evil supernatural beings that may have been caught in the blast of light and sound suffer 2D6x10 M.D."

If "supernatural being" and "Supernatural Being" mean different things (which again, I see no basis in believing) then what are entries like that talking about?

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Also for Siren, Page 83 clearly says "Formerly a succubus before being elevated to Hell Lord"

Ah, so I guess she's not technically one anymore, it seems to imply? Kind of like a succubus+

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Remember Hell Lords are above Princes in power, meaning they've got enough worshipers to have begun their acendancy to Godhood and have at least 1 deific power each in addition to better stats and other unique powers.

DB10 mentions deific powers for Hell Princes, though it doesn't really go into detail about how many worshippers they need to accomplish that like DB11p13 does for elevating to Deevil Lord from Deevil Regent.

Unless you're aware of some other guidelines, I'd borrow those. They seem applicable to "minor" lords anyway (such as the 3 in Bletherad) since you only get a few deific powers, whereas D+G has ALL the deific powers for every one of the great/major lords.

DB35p17 mentions Hell Lords following between "Prince" and "Demon Lord" but I'm not sure where to look for differences in ability that would result from this. You sure it's not just rank?

The title system seems kind of odd here. Hell Lords are still Demons so it doesn't seem wrong to call them "Demon Lords" either. Heck, there are minor demon lords in Library of Bletherad and some in Nightlands too, all of whom serve Modeus, so I would just think of Hell Lords as one of a variety of "Lesser Demon Lords" while the ones in D+G are "Greater Demon Lords".

Nekira Sudacne wrote:She was a Succubus, became Mania's lover, and has some deific power by now.

What power? I also can't see where it talks about her being Mania's lover.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Same with Zugard and the other Hell Lords. They are probablly on par with Dyval Regents with 1d4 Deific powers, but prehaps they simply lack the x3 cost for deific powers.

Dyval Regents don't get deific powers, they get special "Powers of the Regent" instead, you have to become a Deevil Lord to get the "1D4 Deific or Proto-Deific Powers". This is mentioned in addition to "The Powers of the Deevil Lords" which includes as its 4th ability 1d4 from a list (page 14) so in total I guess they get 2D4: 1D4 from the list, and 1D4 not on the list.

I don't mind that being better than Hell Princes because Lords should be better than Princes, it seems like it should be the new super-prince "Hell Lords" who should be able to compete with lesser Dyval Lords.
the book isn't clear. But all hell Lords have so much unique stuff because they're former demons halfway to Demon Lords and so are developing unique apperances/identities of such.[/quote]

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:14 am**

Axelmania wrote:Found something else interesting searching this book... page 116
Chaos Trooper Armor is primarily designed for the larger-framed supernatural beings such as Gallu, Baal-Rogs, Gargoyles, Deevils, Dragons, Horrors and Beasts.

That's the latest canon as of September 2015 right?

For all the dragons fighting in the Minion Wars? Please. The chances of this not being a typo for Deevil Dragons which was not caught due to having the word "Deevils" right in front of it is about the same as you winning the Powerball jackpot, twice, while being struck by lightning both times. You know this, but since you can twist it into support for your obsession with making dragons (who snarl at the implication that they have more in common with supernatural beings than with humans) into supernatural beings, I'm not surprised that you've pounced on it.

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:57 am**

Dragons are prideful creatures who have a crush on their pet humans, it biases their reasoning.

Keep in mind that the common Deevil is 8 feet tall, they're pretty big fellows too.

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:25 pm**

Axelmania wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Not really. Supernatural is also the usual collquialism for "Magical" and not "Supernatural being". So it's designed for supernatural beings lower case, which included all larged frames beings-who-are-magical, but not Supernatural Beings with the uppercase proper noun.

I've never found these upper/lowercase arguments to hold much water. Page 29 for example uses lowercase when describing mechanics "Any evil supernatural beings that may have been caught in the blast of light and sound suffer 2D6x10 M.D."

If "supernatural being" and "Supernatural Being" mean different things (which again, I see no basis in believing) then what are entries like that talking about?

Supernatural Beig is a proper noun.
supernatural being is a noun.
(to say there is no difference between a proper noun and a noun would seam to be wrong, while a proper noun is a noun not all nouns are proper nouns)
So there is that merrit. If the proper noun is limited to true Supernatural Creatures that are immortal and reform when slain off their native plane and the noun is a category of creatures with inate magic abilties, then it would be true. Even mecanics could fallow that pattern. So your example does not really disrpove the theory. But then PB editing means it could be just bad editing.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:33 am**

The book readily flips between "supernatural being" and "Supernatural Being" in many instances, there has never been any indication they mean different things. You see the same thing for other nouns, including the names of species.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:35 am**

Axelmania wrote:The book readily flips between "supernatural being" and "Supernatural Being" in many instances, there has never been any indication they mean different things. You see the same thing for other nouns, including the names of species.

Hence the reason I said that PB editing does not prove the theory, any more than your statement disproved it.

(Culture is a proper noun race is typically not. That is why you do not need to capitalize human or dog but you do British and Japanese. So your example again does not disprove anything. So if they are talking about race it is not a proper noun even if they talk about culture in another sentence.)

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:34 pm**

The word "human" is different from "British" and "Japanese" in regard to more than a capitalized letter though, it's an entirely different word.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:18 pm**

ahh, but western and Western are different.
Proper nouns and regular nouns are not the same thing. Therefore we can't have our cake and eat it too. Either the books are inerrant and are 100% infalliable canon on all things and every thing must be considered canon, even the contradictions... OR they can have sloppy editing mistakes.
You cant have both. If they are totally inerrant, then you have to accept that proper nouns and nouns are not the same thing and thus you can not equate them as identical.
Me? I do not believe in inerrancy. Inerrancy is for divinely revealed religions, not human authored works of fiction.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:08 pm**

eliakon wrote:ahh, but western and Western are different.
Proper nouns and regular nouns are not the same thing. Therefore we can't have our cake and eat it too. Either the books are inerrant and are 100% infalliable canon on all things and every thing must be considered canon, even the contradictions... OR they can have sloppy editing mistakes.
You cant have both. If they are totally inerrant, then you have to accept that proper nouns and nouns are not the same thing and thus you can not equate them as identical.
Me? I do not believe in inerrancy. Inerrancy is for divinely revealed religions, not human authored works of fiction.

That is kind of he problem while there is a inherent difference in nouns and proper nouns, the PB editing patern makes it impossible to prove either theory is correct. We just wind up with theories that can not be proven without divine(PB editor and chief Kevin S. for PB) intervention. I for one will not hold my breath for it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:12 am**

The PB editing pattern disproves the "supernatural being and Supernatural Being mean different things" theory because we CONSTANTLY see them switch between capitalizing or not capitalizing certain terms.

CB1Rp86 "The Elves of the Palladium World"

DB2p84 "controlled by elves from the Anvil"

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:34 am**

I normally just go by what's in the race/rcc rules and discrimination. So if that tells me it's a creature of magic as I look over the stats, but elsewhere in the book it outright states the race/rcc in question is indeed supernatural, then it's a creature of magic. It might not be the best method, but it's how I address the inconsistency.

This is also kind of off topic, but do supernatural creatures have DNA? Can they, for instance, leave behind genetic information at a crime? I know, for instance, you can harvest demon bones (and assume you can do the same for deevils). I also know that one of the ways a demon can cross over is by impregnating a woman with themselves, or possessing her fetus, or some **** like that. Basically, it seems, a demon can be born. I also know that god's can have children with mortals, so is the whole "no cross breeding" rule thrown out the window when dealing with purely supernatural beings? Also, all the same prior questions but for creatures of magic.

I only ask this because it seem that I have fallen under the impression that supernatural beings could be geneticly modified and/or their DNA use with other things to create something new; but sadly I can't remember where I got this idea from. Maybe I read it while looking over genetech, splicers, or the splugorth.

Forums of the Megaverse®

Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Re: Supernatural Evil

Supernatural Evil