Forums of the Megaverse®

DamonS wrote:Exhaustive Mind-wipe. A Vampire Vegetable is for all practical purposes dead.

This mind wipe business is flawed on so many levels, where to begin...
Assuming your using the books and not your own bizzare set of house rules:
Lets start with the fact that the psychic has to make physical contact with his victim. Vampires can transform into mist and slip away no problem.

Now assuming the vampire "forgot" he can become mist, and the psychic in question doesnt burn himself out wiping (premanenetly buring off 4 ME points), a vampire with no memory IS STILL A VAMPIRE! The desire (need) to consume blood is instinctive!!
Even if someone mind wiped a normal person totally would they forget that they can walk? Or, more precisely, eat? no they would not. Any assertion that a creature devoid of memories would not know how or what to eat is plain silly. Of course, I have the feeling that when you GM (and its not a solo campaign), characters have to take things like walking, breathing, etc, as skills or you'd rule that they cannot do it.

For game purposes, Mind-Wipe wipes memories (what did i have for breakfast yesterday? Who is this person who calls himself my friend? Why can't I remember my childhood? etc), not skills (language and literacy). It does not cause the victim to lapse into a coma-like state of living death or cause them to collapse on the floor drooling unable to move or act.

Next time you have a thought, DamonS, let it go... just let it go...

Personally, I can see both sides of the arguements that are being hashed out on this thread, but IMO it doesn't work well to rely on canon so much KC. I mean, there are ALOT of things that are not stated clearly in the books and this widespread application of that means, at least to me, that one sould take the books with a bit of salt and common sense.

In regards to the things that a vampire is vulnerable to: how does one KNOW that a vampire is vulnerable to this or that? I mean its only been what? how many years since the cataclasm. Also, all of what vampires are vulnerable to are what is stated in myths and folklore. Then comes along Triax saying basically "Hey guys, look! Not only are these new bullets pretty sweet, they also damage vampires!" which says to me that they were always vulnerable to uranium and to the statement that they couldn't have been because they just bounced off the vampires in my game until Triax came out, I gotta ask: How did the players get the uranium rounds before Triax?

Also, this brings to mind that if Triax can find a new way to deal with Vampires, its not a hard stretch of the mind to realize that there may, in fact, be other ways to deal with them more or less effectively. Whether they come out in a published book or are house rules doesn't really matter since KS has said that you GM whatever works.

And as a side note, I can't see how some people can be so hidebound when it comes to canon. Come on, there has to be some allowances. I mean, if you are dead set on canon, then there can't be errata for any of the books, if there was errata, that would mean that the books are infalible and would take away one's reason to use only what the books say, no matter what.

When discussing what the canon rules ARE, as we're doing here, then canon is the best source.

Killer Cyborg wrote:When discussing what the canon rules ARE, as we're doing here, then canon is the best source.

Except that in this case the canon has been replaced/superseded by canon.

Adding in Uranium and Depleted uranium does not replace old canon, it merely adds a new page to the book. Untill they come out with a revised mind wipe that says it kills memories and/or turns victims into a vegetable, then it only kills memories as per written. simple as that.

Vampires take damage from just about anything (25% more from uranium and DU rounds ) but only a run thru water or exposure to sunlight will actually kill it, as written.

You could bomb that thing with a million plasma charges, reducing it to it's constituant elements, and it WILL recover (provided the crater you make doesnt fill with water and there is enough time before sunrise)

The Sovereign wrote:

asajosh wrote:Adding in Uranium and Depleted uranium does not replace old canon, it merely adds a new page to the book. Untill they come out with a revised mind wipe that says it kills memories and/or turns victims into a vegetable, then it only kills memories as per written. simple as that.

Vampires take damage from just about anything (25% more from uranium and DU rounds ) but only a run thru water or exposure to sunlight will actually kill it, as written.

You could bomb that thing with a million plasma charges, reducing it to it's constituant elements, and it WILL recover (provided the crater you make doesnt fill with water and there is enough time before sunrise)

Just curious where you got that, my copy of Vampire Kingdoms says that steel, energy, explosives, bullets, acid, radiation, disease, electricity, and more do "absolutely NO damage".

As far as I know, vampires don't regenerate instantly from attacks that aren't their weaknesses - they simply aren't affected at all. Thus, strapping a fusion block to one would merely knock it off its feet and burn its clothes, leaving it untouched.

Triax and the NGR my good man, something the germans kame up vith to kill zee GArgoyles!!
Seriously, WB: 5, starting on page 141.

Oh thats true they really don't take damage from anything but silver, wood, etc isnt it? shoot... I'll simma down...
I always pictured it in my head the way i saw in a vampire movie from the 80's (dont remember name): Guy detonates a sleeping vamipre in its caskit (why i dont know ) well the damn thing flies apart into undead chunks, then almost instantly comes back together as a now very awake and angry vampire.
This is how i've always played it (and my GMs have as well) so it's how i've grown to think of vampies and other undead. Like they feel the physical effects of the attack but since its not the aforementioned special weapon type, instant regeneration.
But, Soverign, you are correct that technically they should just eat any traditional MDC damage with no effects (not even concussive force from a million plasma bombs).

verdilak wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:When discussing what the canon rules ARE, as we're doing here, then canon is the best source.

Except that in this case the canon has been replaced/superseded by canon.

Right.
Which means that there has been a change in the canon rules.
Which is what I'm discussing.

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Already covered. Palladium is infamous for not spelling out "common sense" details.

Ohhh, right. So they meant to include your version, but forgot. Nice of you to point it out to us.
Sorry, still wrong.

They included my version.
They just didn't write it very well.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Lame.
Try again.

Tell that to Shakespeare - though I confess 'A rose by any other name' is more punchy than anything involving metal fruit, but I'm still right here too. You can title a section of the rules whatever you want to call it, but it's the actual content - and lack thereof - that's important.

It's not a section of the rules; it's a power.

Killer Cyborg wrote:No, that's still an impass.
I can just as easily say that Triax is proof of my view that the rules were set and were later changed.

And what you're missing is that "common sense" in this context isn't what you think, or what I think; it's what the writers think.

You could. You'd be wrong, but you could - I certainly wouldn't stop you.

I think I'll just say "Nuh-uh" back at you, since that's what this conversation has devolved down to.

I'm missing nothing of the 'common sense' of the discussion, I just think that they were describing a mythic state in the most commonly though-of terms and leaving themselves wiggle room for later, whereas you think they were carving letters of stone.
Since the material doesn't support your assertion, I guess that's just unfortunate.

Nuh-Uh.

I have stated that the names of powers does not define the rules for those same powers. That's what the rules for them are for.

You've stated a lot of things, but that doesn't make them true.
The names of the powers don't define the rules for those powers, but they sure as hell describe the powers.

In other words: Nuh-Uh.

Killer Cyborg wrote:"Nearly" = "With the exception of the listed weaknesses".

Funny... my dictionary says
1. all but; almost: nearly dead with cold.
2. with close approximation: a nearly perfect likeness.
3. with close agreement or resemblance: a plan nearly like our own.
4. with close kinship, interest, or connection; intimately: nearly associated in business; two women nearly related.

All of which seem to imply 'nearly' means something rather different to what you think it does. Though of course, it's possible that the Palladium Writers had a copy of your dictionary when they wrote the book.
I doubt this.[/quote]


Uh, no.... I'm using definition #1. "All but" or "Almost".
Vampires are "all but" invulnerable.
If not for the listed weaknesses, then they'd be completely invulnerable.
But since they have those listed weaknesses, they're only nearly invulnerable.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Nope.
I read the book and understood what the author intended.
Later authors (or perhaps even the same one, I forget who wrote Triax) decided to go a different direction and changed the rules.
This happens quite frequently in Palladium.

Or rather you have misread the book and decided what you think was meant. you still don't seem to be able to find that proof I asked for.
Funny that.

As I've said, there's no real proof for either side.
Which means that all we can do is go back and forth saying "Nuh-Uh." and "uh-huh!" at each other and calling each other wrong.
Or we can let it go and let the argument drop.

But since you don't want to do that, I'll just respond to your demand for proof by re-issuing my own demand for proof back at you.

Oooooh, now actually that one is a stonkingly good point. Your first so far I think, in the main discussion.

Merely the first one that you've noticed.

I would however fall back on extraordinary claims and extraordinary proof - a sort of minor Occam's razor.

It's unlikely that every single thing that could harm a Vampire would ever have been tried on them because most people would in-character believe as you do out of character.

You're confusing in-game and out-of-game again.
The rules describe the reality of the game. No character needs to have ever tried silver on a vampire in order for silver to be a listed weakness of vampires.
Characters trying new attacks on vampires = In-Game
Monster Stats and Powers = Out-of-Game

Killer Cyborg wrote:The text doesn't actively support either of us.
So saying that vampires DO have other weaknesses is also a house rule.
After Triax, then the claim that anything other than the stuff listed in VK, and the stuff listed in triax, is a house rule.

I think I've said that first part four or five times now myself in the course of this one, but I'll forgive you for finally coming around to my point of view.
And of course it is - it's just one more firmly based in probability than your one.

Uh, no.
There is no probability involved.
The rules list the stats for vampires. They don't list their probable stats.
They don't say that vampires are probably vulnerable to silver, etc. and that's probably all that they're vulnerable to.
The rules are the rules; there's no probability about it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:None of what you said there affects what I said in any way.
Writers don't discover vulnerabilities for nonexistant creatures; they invent them.
Simple fact.

And we discover them, in the course of play.

I actually learn the rules by reading the books.
It's not discovery, any more than one "discovers" the rules of Tag, Baseball or any other game.

Nice try... but it still doesn't help you - 'limited' means 'confined within limits', or 'restricted', whilst 'invulnerability' means 'incapable of being wounded, hurt, or damaged.'

Therefore within certain limits, Vampires are incapable of being wounded, hurt or damaged - I'm sure you're with me so far, since we both agree on this.

It then goes to give examples of things that do not, and things that do hurt them. These lists are never stated to be complete, conclusive or much of anything else. It just is.

The lists are never mentioned to be incomplete, and there is no reason to believe that they were meant to be incomplete.

You want this to be an all-encompassing super-ability, I prefer to believe it's a mythic qualifier that may be changed by the process of in-character discovery (perhaps, for example facilitated by the publishing of new books or the views of a certain GM).

I prefer to believe that the writers write the official rules of the game.
You seem to think that the players, in character, do.

That kind of speaks for itself.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Perhaps not, but you're in the exact same boat.
I can keep saying that it's obvious that the authors intended for the listed vulnerabilities to be the only one, and you can keep insisiting that it's obvious that the authors intended to leave the future open, but that's all that either of us are really bringing to the table here.
Except, of course, that I'm right.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I claim that the rules in the book are what they say they are.

You claim that they say something more than is written on the page and obviously you can read this invisible writing.[/quote]

No, I claim that the rules in the book are what they say you are.
Just as you do.

You just have a bizarre misunderstanding of what the rules in the book mean, and that's what we disagree on.

Oh, and nicely sumarised V. KC's main problem in this discussion is that he's trying to state that the Rules Have Changed, whereas in fact they just didn't say what he thought they did from the begining - much as you point out.
But I sense another round of empty repetition coming /right/ up. ^_^

Once again, an addition is a change.
There has been an addition to the rules for harming vampires.
Ergo, there has been a change in the rules.

asajosh wrote:

DamonS wrote:Exhaustive Mind-wipe. A Vampire Vegetable is for all practical purposes dead.

This mind wipe business is flawed on so many levels, where to begin...
Assuming your using the books and not your own bizzare set of house rules:
Lets start with the fact that the psychic has to make physical contact with his victim. Vampires can transform into mist and slip away no problem.

Oooh, I leave for a couple days and my my doesn't the venom overcome the common sense.

For starters, I had no idea the ideas posted for alternate vampire killing would be disqualified if 'physical contact' was a pre-requisite.

I guess wood and silver are also out, since they *also* require physical contact and are *also* rendered useless if the vampire turns to mist..... unless of course the above is a very stupid objection... It never is good to begin somewhere stupid, but there you go.

asajosh wrote:Now assuming the vampire "forgot" he can become mist, and the psychic in question doesnt burn himself out wiping (premanenetly buring off 4 ME points), a vampire with no memory IS STILL A VAMPIRE! The desire (need) to consume blood is instinctive!!
Even if someone mind wiped a normal person totally would they forget that they can walk? Or, more precisely, eat? no they would not. Any assertion that a creature devoid of memories would not know how or what to eat is plain silly. Of course, I have the feeling that when you GM (and its not a solo campaign), characters have to take things like walking, breathing, etc, as skills or you'd rule that they cannot do it.

For game purposes, Mind-Wipe wipes memories (what did i have for breakfast yesterday? Who is this person who calls himself my friend? Why can't I remember my childhood? etc), not skills (language and literacy). It does not cause the victim to lapse into a coma-like state of living death or cause them to collapse on the floor drooling unable to move or act.

This post tells me that someone here has never seen a human who truly has *no* memories.... which is sad, because most of us have, it's quite beautiful. Newborn babies, 100% instinct, almost no memories (because they've not been alive long enough to have any). There you go. When the hungry newborn pops out knowing how to feed itself, then I'll be proven wrong. However, as things go, no matter how hungry a newborn is, they only know how to do two things, cry, and swallow *IF* something is put to their lips. Animals have a lot fewer instincts than you might think.

Newborn babies, literally, don't even know how to *crawl*, they learn that. If it can be learned, it can be forgotten (This can even be done non-psionically, there are non-psionic ways to wipe skills out).

It is interesting, Mind wipe wipes out memories, but there are no statements in it about how many memories someone has and what it would take to wipe them *all* out. The rules for mind wipes and the ilk are there for general game usage, and for the ideas that a mind melter will wipe some memories, but not all. But here's a common sense thing, if you wipe someone's mind enough, you *will* start making them lose their ability to function. Like so many things in RPG's, it begins to break down when you increase the scale, and this is where common sense comes in. Especially since there are mechanisms in Rifts where skills and literacies CAN be lost. Memories, they tell you you can lose them, but they never tell you how many you have. It's up to the GM to determine how many is *all*.

How close to a Vegetable can you put someone... with enough mind wiping? I would call Terry Shaivo an example of a model for what an 'exhaustive mind wipe' would do... then again, I also would say " a coma-like state of living death....... on the floor drooling unable to move or act." is a pretty fair description of what that state of affairs is. It's never said how close to this point you can put someone in game.

The mind wipe idea is very simple.... people have only so many memories, wipe them *all* out, and they will become as newborns (The book doesn't say what wiping out EVERY memory would do, nor does it say how many memories people have, so you have to ponder it). Vampires, regenerate wounds, but *not* memories. It's thinking outside the box. It would require a lot of mind wiping, obviously, and probably a lot more trouble than its worth. But logically speaking, enough mind wiping would do it.

And the idea of mind-melters taking revenge on someone by mind wiping them so much that they revert to the state of newborns or to being a human vegetable... Really, if they are UNABLE to do that, then do they really earn the name mind MELTER?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Essentially, yes.

Although I'm not saying that magic does work in real life; I'm discussing how people believe (and have believed) that it does work.

In every culture that comes to mind, the sun and the moon are distinctly different with different properties. The sun is almost always masculine, the moon is almost always feminine. They have different gods/goddesses.
They have different meanings, represent different things, and do different things.
Things vulnerable to one are not vulnerable to the other.

The sun and the moon *are* distinctly different things... the question is whether the *light* is similar enough. And "Distinctly different" is kind of a misleading phrase, War and Harvest are "disctinctely different" in folklore. Different, pretty unrelated entities.

The Sun and The Moon.... Always incredibly related, with The Greeks literally making them *Twins*. In some cultures, they are married to one another. The reality is that they are almost always different genders, reflecting some ideal that they are different aspects of the same thing (that thing being the source of light and life!).

True, no culture has the sun and the moon being the same thing, but that's because they aren't the same thing. However, that the sun and the moon are intimately related, and that things are affected by both.... is ubiquitous. It's ignoring culture that vampires hate sunlight but moonlight has no effect at all. Culturally, moonlight should either Strengthen vampires (as they are night creatures...) or Weaken them (as they are creatures of darkness...), depending on which culture you ask and how they see the sun/moon. The weaken aspect is defendable culturally and astronomically.

Even in Palladium. Solar Eclipse vs Lunar Eclipse, same effects, the only difference is intensity of effect.

"Magically speaking" if sunlight does *something*, then moonlight should do *something* too, and if you're looking via that Hindu night goddess, then moonlight should weaken them.

"Speaking by the rules", sunlight hurts or weakens vampires, reflected sunlight hurts or weakens vampires, therefore moonlight should hurt or weaken them.

DamonS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Essentially, yes.

Although I'm not saying that magic does work in real life; I'm discussing how people believe (and have believed) that it does work.

In every culture that comes to mind, the sun and the moon are distinctly different with different properties. The sun is almost always masculine, the moon is almost always feminine. They have different gods/goddesses.
They have different meanings, represent different things, and do different things.
Things vulnerable to one are not vulnerable to the other.

The sun and the moon *are* distinctly different things... the question is whether the *light* is similar enough.

The answer is "no".

And "Distinctly different" is kind of a misleading phrase, War and Harvest are "disctinctely different" in folklore. Different, pretty unrelated entities.

The Sun and The Moon.... Always incredibly related, with The Greeks literally making them *Twins*. In some cultures, they are married to one another. The reality is that they are almost always different genders, reflecting some ideal that they are different aspects of the same thing (that thing being the source of light and life!).

True, no culture has the sun and the moon being the same thing, but that's because they aren't the same thing.

Exactly.
And since only Sunlight is listed as harming vampires, not "Sun-like light", moonlight doesn't hurt them.

However, that the sun and the moon are intimately related, and that things are affected by both.... is ubiquitous. It's ignoring culture that vampires hate sunlight but moonlight has no effect at all. Culturally, moonlight should either Strengthen vampires (as they are night creatures...) or Weaken them (as they are creatures of darkness...), depending on which culture you ask and how they see the sun/moon. The weaken aspect is defendable culturally and astronomically.

Or they're creatures of Night, and moonlight doesn't have any more effect on them than any other specific part of the night.

(But I do like the argument that moonlight should strengthen them. It doesn't, of course, since it's not in the rules, but it might make an interesting house rule, or a good rule for another game where Vampires are moon-creatures. That would also give them a whole host of natural enemies; sun-creatures.)

Even in Palladium. Solar Eclipse vs Lunar Eclipse, same effects, the only difference is intensity of effect.

Both increase PPE, but if you want to make that argument then Solstice also generates PPE, so you might as well argue that the Sun and Solstice are the same thing; that Solstice should hurt vampires.

"Magically speaking" if sunlight does *something*, then moonlight should do *something* too,

Not at all.
Magically, they're different things.
That's like saying, "Magically speaking, if one rock does something, then other rocks should do the same thing."

and if you're looking via that Hindu night goddess, then moonlight should weaken them.

Huh?

"Speaking by the rules", sunlight hurts or weakens vampires, reflected sunlight hurts or weakens vampires, therefore moonlight should hurt or weaken them.

a. Where does it say that reflected sunlight hurts or weakens vampires?
b. Moonlight is not the same as reflected sunlight. Not magically.
Otherwise reflected sunlight could make werewolfs change shape. But it doesn't.
Only moonlight does, because moonlight has different magical properties than sunlight.

bob the desolate one wrote:hate to be a buzz kill but read atlantis page 131 the sword of atlantis will kill a vampire it even does double damage
edit: also the necron staff page 130 and the sword of life 131

What about it?

bob the desolate one wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

bob the desolate one wrote:hate to be a buzz kill but read atlantis page 131 the sword of atlantis will kill a vampire it even does double damage
edit: also the necron staff page 130 and the sword of life 131

What about it?

they all can be used to kill vampires and they do double damage

Right.
What about it?

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:They included my version.
They just didn't write it very well.

Nuh-uh.

Sorry, I couldn't resist skipping ahead.

Still, that's your house rule. Others have theirs, each equally valid.

It's not a house rule; it's an interpretation of the official text.
The right one, in fact.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's not a section of the rules; it's a power.

Right, because powers don't need rules to define them, they do what you want.
Puh-lease.

Powers use rules to help define them.
This does not mean that powers ARE rules, which was what you were saying.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You've stated a lot of things, but that doesn't make them true.
The names of the powers don't define the rules for those powers, but they sure as hell describe the powers.

Describe.
Not Define.

That's what the rules for the power do, the small print underneath the title you're all excited about.

Yup.
And those rules, combined with the name of the power, describe creatures that are invulnerable, with the exception of a handful of listed weaknesses.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Uh, no.... I'm using definition #1. "All but" or "Almost".
Vampires are "all but" invulnerable.
If not for the listed weaknesses, then they'd be completely invulnerable.
But since they have those listed weaknesses, they're only nearly invulnerable.

Nice, but the book still doesn't say that. It hasn't since the begining of this thread and I don't think it's going to change any time soon.

The book essentially does say that; it just doesn't dumb things down enough for your personal satisfaction.

Killer Cyborg wrote:As I've said, there's no real proof for either side.
Which means that all we can do is go back and forth saying "Nuh-Uh." and "uh-huh!" at each other and calling each other wrong.
Or we can let it go and let the argument drop.

But since you don't want to do that, I'll just respond to your demand for proof by re-issuing my own demand for proof back at you.

Occam's Razor - and besides, you made the point, I called you on it, and now I'm waiting for proof of said point. It's not so far been forthcoming - because you're quite right, there isn't any.

1. Occan's Razor is on my side.
2. As I said, I don't have the proof you want.
You can keep demanding it, acting like this means something, if you like, but it really doesn't mean a damn thing.
The conversation has moved on from that point, to the point where I asked for your proof, and pointed out that you don't have any either.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You're confusing in-game and out-of-game again.
The rules describe the reality of the game. No character needs to have ever tried silver on a vampire in order for silver to be a listed weakness of vampires.
Characters trying new attacks on vampires = In-Game
Monster Stats and Powers = Out-of-Game

You seem to have a very binary view of things. It's probably why you're having so much difficulty with this whole concept.

Nothing wrong with a binary view when discussing binary things.

However...
'The rules describe the reality of the game' - correct.
'No character needs to have ever tried silver' - Not correct. Historically, someone somewhere in the Palladium world of IC tried it.

You're confusing two seperate things.
Yes, somebody in the in-game history of the Palladium world has tried silver against vampires.
But this has no bearing on whether any fictional character needed to have tried this fictional vulnerability against the fictional monsters in order for the writers to describe the vulnerability.

For example, a Palladium writer could come up with a completely new monster who has never been to Rifts Earth before.
Heck, this monster might have been just created in the story/book/adventure in question.
This monster could be vulnerable to Iron, and described as vulnerable to iron in the official text, even if none of the fictional characters anywhere in the megaverse had actually tried iron as a weapon against the monster.

Because, and I'm sure this will shock you to the core:
Writers make stuff up.

They don't sit back, look at the history of the megaverse, and think:
"Well, Zod the Elder (who doesn't exist) once hit a vampire (that never existed either) on the head with a (imaginary) silver candlestick, and that damaged the vampire, therefore vampires must be vulnerable to silver. So I should put that in the official game stats of vampires..."

More like:
"Well, I want vampires to be vulnerable to silver, so I think I'll put that in the official stats."

No-one tried Depleted Uranium until more 'recently' ICly, or if they did it was not recorded, ICly, and therefore did not make it into the rules, which are OOC, until it was, IC.

Nobody ever tried Uranium rounds against vampires.
Vampires and Uranium rounds don't exist.

What happened was that the writers made up a new weapon against supernatural creatures, and the writers decided that this new weapon would even affect vampires, even though vampires had previously been described as invulnerable to bullets and to radiation.

What did NOT happen was that the fictional characters in the game discovered a new vulnerability for vampires, and the discovery prompted the real-world writers to write the new weapon down in the Triax book.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The rules are the rules; there's no probability about it.

This much is partially true. They state a list of weaknesses and a list of invulnerabilities. The two neither overlap nor meet, leaving extensive gaps not defined. There is no probability about this.
Perhaps the word I should have used was plausable.

Perhaps; I don't even remember what exactly you were trying to say.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I actually learn the rules by reading the books.
It's not discovery, any more than one "discovers" the rules of Tag, Baseball or any other game.

Then you miss out on a lot of the fun of RPG's.

You can't play the game if you don't know the rules.
Not well.
And you sure as hell can't RUN a game if you don't know the rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The lists are never mentioned to be incomplete, and there is no reason to believe that they were meant to be incomplete.

The lists are never mentioned to be complete and there is even less reason to believe they were meant to be complete.

There's plenty of reason to believe that they are complete.
The Limited Invulnerability describes vampires' ability to shrug off damage from all general forms of attacks; energy, radiation, explosions, kinetic attacks, magic, etc.
Then the book lists a specifc list of things that CAN harm vampires, with no indication that this is a partial list.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I prefer to believe that the writers write the official rules of the game.
You seem to think that the players, in character, do.

That kind of speaks for itself.

I have no idea where you get that bizarre notion from - but the source of a number of your ideas of what I think in this discussion so far have been something of a mystery.

It all comes from the words you're posting.
If you can't make sense of them, that's not my fault.

In this instance, the writers right the game. They create a critter and write some rules for it. They leave themselves room in the descriptions to play later, by not defining everything. Later they define more things.
Easy.

I'm with you, except for the underlined, which is purely your own unsupported opinion.

Killer Cyborg wrote: I claim that the rules in the book are what they say they are.

So do I. The difference being that I seem to have read them carefully.

Whereas I have actually understood them.

DamonS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Essentially, yes.

Although I'm not saying that magic does work in real life; I'm discussing how people believe (and have believed) that it does work.

In every culture that comes to mind, the sun and the moon are distinctly different with different properties. The sun is almost always masculine, the moon is almost always feminine. They have different gods/goddesses.
They have different meanings, represent different things, and do different things.
Things vulnerable to one are not vulnerable to the other.

The sun and the moon *are* distinctly different things... the question is whether the *light* is similar enough. And "Distinctly different" is kind of a misleading phrase, War and Harvest are "disctinctely different" in folklore. Different, pretty unrelated entities.

The Sun and The Moon.... Always incredibly related, with The Greeks literally making them *Twins*. In some cultures, they are married to one another. The reality is that they are almost always different genders, reflecting some ideal that they are different aspects of the same thing (that thing being the source of light and life!).

True, no culture has the sun and the moon being the same thing, but that's because they aren't the same thing. However, that the sun and the moon are intimately related, and that things are affected by both.... is ubiquitous. It's ignoring culture that vampires hate sunlight but moonlight has no effect at all. Culturally, moonlight should either Strengthen vampires (as they are night creatures...) or Weaken them (as they are creatures of darkness...), depending on which culture you ask and how they see the sun/moon. The weaken aspect is defendable culturally and astronomically.

Even in Palladium. Solar Eclipse vs Lunar Eclipse, same effects, the only difference is intensity of effect.

"Magically speaking" if sunlight does *something*, then moonlight should do *something* too, and if you're looking via that Hindu night goddess, then moonlight should weaken them.

"Speaking by the rules", sunlight hurts or weakens vampires, reflected sunlight hurts or weakens vampires, therefore moonlight should hurt or weaken them.

yeah that sounds fun, let's fight baddies who die if touched by sunlight and are weakened or destroyed by moonlight too. Why don't we just beat on some slugs? It would be just as fun. Having it your way there wouldn't be a vampire threat and this discussion would be moot, since they could only be active like 2-4 days out of the lunar cycle.

Good rule of thumb for Palladium Vamps, if it couldn't hurt dracula in Monster Squad, it can't hurt them in Rifts

IMO, U-rounds should only be able to halt their regen if anything at all, especially since it says vamps are immune to the effects of radiation. But since PB has a notoriously bad habit of contradicting themselves and making humongous editorial mistakes, I ignore that line in the book anyhow.

bob the desolate one wrote:wasn't the purpose of this thread to find unconvetional ways to kill vamps way that weren't listed in vampire kingdoms well rune weapons are one of the ways not listed.

Eh.
He asked, "Are there any other outrageous ideas of killing a vampire that get around the ways presented in Vampire Kingdoms?"

Nothing too outrageous about those weapons, but okay.

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's not a house rule; it's an interpretation of the official text.
The right one, in fact.

Nuh-uh.

Actually, that's starting to get old. I'll give you that it's an interpretation of the rules, it's just one without any basis. But we've gone over that.

We have; you're still wrong.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Powers use rules to help define them.
This does not mean that powers ARE rules, which was what you were saying.

Wow... you really *don't* read what other people write, do you?

Powers use rules *to* define them, otherwise we'd just be freeforming. Which is fun, but subject to terrible twinkery.

So the name "Impervious to Fire" has nothing to do with the power?
Riight.
You go on thinking that.

Names and descriptions define the powers and how they operate.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Yup.
And those rules, combined with the name of the power, describe creatures that are invulnerable, with the exception of a handful of listed weaknesses.

Still unproven, still untrue.

Good comeback.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The book essentially does say that; it just doesn't dumb things down enough for your personal satisfaction.

I wonder when 'Essentially' started to mean 'Actually not at all'.

It doesn't.
You're stretching farther and farther with each post, dude.

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. Occan's Razor is on my side.
2. As I said, I don't have the proof you want.
You can keep demanding it, acting like this means something, if you like, but it really doesn't mean a damn thing.
The conversation has moved on from that point, to the point where I asked for your proof, and pointed out that you don't have any either.

Hmmm.

Proposition 1 : That vampires are immune to everything except a few specific, listed items, and that subsequent changes are fundamental shifts in the game rules only.

Proposition 2 : That vampires are immune to almost everything, the majority of readily available and known examples of which were given, but that subsequent changes merely represent increased IC knowledge, to preserve continuity.

"Known", huh?
So what you're saying is that there were secred vulnerabilities that vampires had, but that the writers didn't "know" what they were?
That's a load of crap, as I keep pointing out.
You keep getting the real world confused with the gameworld.

In the real world, the writers know what the vulnerabilities of vampires are, because they're the ones who make them up.
They can later make up new vulnerabilities, but that's all.
They can't "discover" new vulnerabilities, because all that exists of these imaginary vampires is what is written in the books.

No, sorry man. Occam called, and he says you're full of it.

lol
Resorting to talking to dead people for support.
Nice.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You're confusing two seperate things.
Yes, somebody in the in-game history of the Palladium world has tried silver against vampires.
But this has no bearing on whether any fictional character needed to have tried this fictional vulnerability against the fictional monsters in order for the writers to describe the vulnerability.

For example, a Palladium writer could come up with a completely new monster who has never been to Rifts Earth before.
Heck, this monster might have been just created in the story/book/adventure in question.
This monster could be vulnerable to Iron, and described as vulnerable to iron in the official text, even if none of the fictional characters anywhere in the megaverse had actually tried iron as a weapon against the monster.

Because, and I'm sure this will shock you to the core:
Writers make stuff up.

They don't sit back, look at the history of the megaverse, and think:
"Well, Zod the Elder (who doesn't exist) once hit a vampire (that never existed either) on the head with a (imaginary) silver candlestick, and that damaged the vampire, therefore vampires must be vulnerable to silver. So I should put that in the official game stats of vampires..."

More like:
"Well, I want vampires to be vulnerable to silver, so I think I'll put that in the official stats."

No-one tried Depleted Uranium until more 'recently' ICly, or if they did it was not recorded, ICly, and therefore did not make it into the rules, which are OOC, until it was, IC.

Nobody ever tried Uranium rounds against vampires.
Vampires and Uranium rounds don't exist.

What happened was that the writers made up a new weapon against supernatural creatures, and the writers decided that this new weapon would even affect vampires, even though vampires had previously been described as invulnerable to bullets and to radiation.

What did NOT happen was that the fictional characters in the game discovered a new vulnerability for vampires, and the discovery prompted the real-world writers to write the new weapon down in the Triax book.

Writers make stuff up!?

Damn, next you'll be telling me there's no easter bunny.

There really isn't an Easter Bunny.

Try again.

My proposition entails that the writers of Palladium are describing a fictional world, and that in the process of writing up the mythic/horror-movie Vampire for it they listed the 'classical' weaknesses as the known ones.
Later they wrote further ones in - from Rune Weapons to U-Rounds, but in the process of doing so disturbed no continuity nor had to change any existing rules, but merely add to an existing description.

An addition to the rules is, as you have said, a change in the rules.
You've already admitted this; I don't know why you're pretending any differently.

It covers both the IC and OOC aspects of this change neatly, particularly since all subsequent weaknesses that have been brought up in the books are either new magics or new discoveries unlikely to have existed before.
Now, if they suddenly decided Vampires were vulnerable to cold iron or Solomon's seals, then you would be completely right. As it is, you're wrong.
Simple as.

Before Triax, if a character tried Uranium rounds against a vampire, then it wouldn't have had any effect because vampires were invulnerable to kinetic attacks (bullets specifically) and to radiation.
After Triax, uranium rounds hurt vampires.

This is a change.
It's that simple.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You can't play the game if you don't know the rules.
Not well.
And you sure as hell can't RUN a game if you don't know the rules.

Wrong - though I'll grant you a familiarity is more than just useful. You *do* need to know the rules to run games however - but playing at least teaches you that there's more than one interpretation of some of the most innocuous sentences.

There's always more than one interpretation, but only one interpretation is correct.
In this case, that would be my interepretation.

(Heck, in pretty much every case, it would be my interpretation that is the correct one.)

Killer Cyborg wrote:There's plenty of reason to believe that they are complete.
The Limited Invulnerability describes vampires' ability to shrug off damage from all general forms of attacks; energy, radiation, explosions, kinetic attacks, magic, etc.
Then the book lists a specifc list of things that CAN harm vampires, with no indication that this is a partial list.

And no indication that it's a complete one. My version fits with contunuity better, too bad, so sad.

How does "Vampires are invulnerable to bullets" and "vampires are invulnerable to radiation" end up meaning "vampires are vulnerable to radioactive bullets" and still make any sense?
It doesn't.
U-Rounds are a change in the rules, and they don't fit with continuity.

Your version doesn't fit continuity; it just pretends that there's continuity where it doesn't exist.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It all comes from the words you're posting.
If you can't make sense of them, that's not my fault.

How wonderfully colonial. I once remember reading the quote that a British guy might read something and think 'I can't follow this, what's wrong with me', but the American will go 'I can't follow this, what's wrong with this guy.'

In this case, I'm repeating your argument back to you, and you can't understand it.
And you're blaming me.

I'm not sure how that fits with your "Brit vs. American" take on things.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm with you, except for the underlined, which is purely your own unsupported opinion.

One that seems to be supported by later publications.

Only not at all.
Changes in the rules don't support the idea that there haven't been changes in the rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Whereas I have actually understood them.

This appears to be your belief. That it's wrong is obviously not something I can help you with.

"I'm rubber, you're glue..."

bob the desolate one wrote:i got another one for you the spell bio blast (south america page 67) is a biomancy spell that fires pure life energy

Dude, there are lots of things in the books that harm vampires.

Just a check...

At this point.... How many posts are KC, and what % of those posts are simply "Requoting" previous posts?

bob the desolate one wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

bob the desolate one wrote:i got another one for you the spell bio blast (south america page 67) is a biomancy spell that fires pure life energy

Dude, there are lots of things in the books that harm vampires.

i am aware thats why i'm trying to list ways not in vampire kingdoms as per requested by the originator of this thread but if you have reservred it for you private arguments i'll move on

Quote the part that you believe was asking for that.

bob the desolate one wrote:

Aaryq wrote:

Are there any other outrageous ideas of killing a vampire that get around the ways presented in Vampire Kingdoms?

Thanks

there you go kc feel free to quote me now and do your best to pick apart what i'm saying and belittle my opinions but **** man we are all here just two talk gaming not argue gaming take it easy man

"Outrageous ideas of killing a vampire that get around the ways presented in Vampire Kingdoms" doesn't seem to me to be referring to other canon methods listed in other books.

But I'm not the OP, so go to town.

Semisonic9 wrote:I don't have any books handy, but can't vampires starve to death in RUE?

Long-term temporal/dimensional magic, or burying them alive or some such would eventually lead to their demise or hibernation, I would think.

~Semi

I don't remember vampires being mentioned in RUE.

bob the desolate one wrote:

DamonS wrote:Just a check...

At this point.... How many posts are KC, and what % of those posts are simply "Requoting" previous posts?

26 posts in this thread and 25 contain quotes

More now.

bob the desolate one wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

bob the desolate one wrote:

DamonS wrote:Just a check...

At this point.... How many posts are KC, and what % of those posts are simply "Requoting" previous posts?

26 posts in this thread and 25 contain quotes

More now.

ok i was starting to think you were a jerk now i know you just like to argue

Perhaps a bit of both.

Semisonic9 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Semisonic9 wrote:I don't have any books handy, but can't vampires starve to death in RUE?

Long-term temporal/dimensional magic, or burying them alive or some such would eventually lead to their demise or hibernation, I would think.

~Semi

I don't remember vampires being mentioned in RUE.

Yeah. I don't even know why RUE is mentioned. Pretend it's not there, then let me know what Vamp Kingdoms says, plz. Arzno conveniently omitted the vamp rules, and I'm not going to go buy Kingdoms just for that.

~Semi

You should buy Vampire Kingdoms because it is still one of the best Rifts books ever written. Certainly the single best Worldbook.

The information you're looking for is on p. 18-19 of Vampire Kingdoms.
Long story short, failing to feed causes penalties, and after 6 months will result in permanent insanity.

Aaryq wrote:
Would attaching a fusion block to its head kill it (I know the answer but maybe if I get some replies I can prove him wrong with facts)

No. The Supernatural properties of the Vampire's body ignores the physical effects of a fusion block.

Would throwing a vampire into the sun kill it?

It would be vaporized long before it even got to the sun's corona. It would, in fact, be vaporized at an even earlier time -magically speaking, at any point at which the Sun (or any star, for that matter), goes from being considered "just" another star to being considered a sun (which pretty much means out to Pluto and some distance beyond).

Would throwing a vampire into a black hole kill it?

No. The Supernatural properties of the Vampire's body ignores the physical effects of a black hole, in much the same way that a ghost 'ignores' the laws of physics and occupies the same point in space at the same time as other objects in the physical world.

And since vampiric mist isn't shown to respond to physical forces around it (per canon it can't get sucked into a vacuum cleaner, and has no mass), one could even argue that it MAY even be possible for a vampire in mist form to escape a singularity!!

Are there any other outrageous ideas of killing a vampire that get around the ways presented in Vampire Kingdoms?

Only those Weapons, Spells, Divine Special Attacks and artifacts specifically stated in the books to harm or kill vampires, such as Vishnu's Holy Third Eye Beam.

mattyj77 wrote:

mattyj77 wrote:Hang on cornholio, A black hole would kill it, what better than something which sucks in all light from surrounding areas. Surely the 'inside' of a black hole would be a seething mass of energy of all forms, wouldn't a black hole be dark looking in but light looking out,therefore subjecting said vampire to masses of photonic juju.

Or if you prefer, black holes are only black because they suck in light (at least thats one theory, right?)

Leading theories for why black holes are black have nothing to do with sucking in nearby light. They're black because their escape velocity is faster than the speed of light. As far as what this would do to a vampire, I'd guess not a whole lot as long as they're capable of functioning in a vacuum in the first place. If they can function, there's absolutely nothing to stop them from magically extracting themselves from the black hole.

mattyj77 wrote:Hang on cornholio, A black hole would kill it, what better than something which sucks in all light from surrounding areas. Surely the 'inside' of a black hole would be a seething mass of energy of all forms, wouldn't a black hole be dark looking in but light looking out,therefore subjecting said vampire to masses of photonic juju.

The material inside Black Holes is not anything that you or I would even remotely consider as "matter as we know it."

Neutrons, Electrons, Neutrinos, Photons.....all of these particles are similarly shredded.

Remember, the actual 'material' in a Black Hole all exists at pretty much the exact same infinitely small space, regardless of the size of the Black Hole's Event Horizon.....and even photons and other quarks are far too big to continue to exist as such.

Which means that even the inside of a black hole is utterly dark even though infinitely 'energetic,' despite what we intuitively might believe otherwise.

mattyj77 wrote:Ok, so I can't suck in a vamp with my vacuum cleaner, but i can't suck in light and many other energy particles either due to the low escape velocity required to escape my vacuum cleaner. Nothing escapes from a black hole, including vamps.

You're still trying to assign physical strictures to a supernatural mist.

EVERY mist subject to physical laws would respond to your vacuum; the mist simply wouldn't respond to physical forces because it simply isn'y physical in the classical sense.

Also the escape velocity of a vampire in mist form is far less than the velocity of light, so once again goodbye vamp.

Again, said mist doesn't possess weight or mass, so if a vampire could keep his head and turn to mist, one could argue that he could possibly escape the black hole's gravitational pull.

Also isn't the " they are black because escape velocity is faster than light" a fancy way of saying they suck in light

You still think that light (photons) that gets sucked in, remains in light form.

NOTHING exists on the "interior" of a black hole as it did on the outside. photons an neutrinos and hapless human astronauts get shredded into an extraphysical soup with equal ease.

And finally if a vampire in mist form has no mass then they must also be able to avoid partcle in a box theory and hence be intangible (which they are not)

Where magic is concerned, the amount of mass you do or do not possess has nothing whatsoever with your ability to be intangible, or not be intangible.

Lots of players run into failry serious problems when they try to equate supernatural forces in Palladium with physics.

In some games and fictional settings, "magic" is actually a form of super-science or advanced technology, but this simply isn't the case in Palladium and the two seldom come together.

mattyj77 wrote:So what your trying to say Cornholio is a vampire is in fact invincible when in a black hole as everything that can destroy it is not what it was previously, now that's a thought.

:?

Perhaps "Invincible" is the wrong word to use.

Palladium Vampires aren't invincible to Black Holes, the substance which makes up their bodies magically "ignores" the superphysical, destructive forces of Black Holes, just as their bodies "ignore" the superphysical, destructive effects of being at Ground Zero of a nuclear explosion or the superphysical, destructive effects of a high-powered rail gun burst.

I'm not attributing physics really, i'm giving an opinion, we disagree, see

Yes, you are; you're attributing physics each and every time that you opine that Palladium Vampires would be destroyed by black holes.

You said nothing exists in a black hole as it did outside.

No, I said that physical matter doesn't exist within a Black Hole the same as it did on the outside.

Vampiric Flesh, while existing on the physical plane, is quite obviously something else besides matter as we know it; physics can't explain skin which is supple and smooth and which a hand could touch and caress and put dimples in, yet could at the exact same time take the brunt of a full-force laser and a high-powered artillery shell and a Vibro-Blade without so much as a singed body hair, and, at the very same time as all of that is going on, get a wooden splinter lodged within it.

Agreed, vampire does not exist. Black holes kill vampires, in a black hole a vampire is not what it was, just outside the black hole a vampire is bombarded by a multitude of photons, dead either way, no physics needed really since there are no proven physics that describe 'a black hole'

The instant that you come upon a set of physical and relativistic Laws that adequately explain a Palladium Vampire's vulnerabilities, powers, and invulnerabilities all in one shot, present them here.

Until then, you're just going to drive yourself batty trying to fit these strange fictional creatures in with the physical laws that exist here in the real world.

Anyway the supernatural thing doesn't wash with me since my reasoning really is about the bombardment of energy when trapped in that local and even a vamp in mist form is killed by sunlight

Vampires aren't physically vulnerable to energy; they're magically vulnerable to sunlight.

And since sunlight is nothing more than a wide-spectrum broadcast of energetic particles, yet vampires are not vulnerable to such broad-spectrum energy broadcasts such as lasers and nuclear bombs (which duplicate in miniature what goes on in the Sun constantly), you simply can't say that Vampires are vulnerable merely to energy....even if that is the energy stream of other particles going into a Black Hole.

(Note: Most observed Black Holes are NOT situated within Binary Pairs and don't actually have other stellar matter to draw in. So just because you threw a vamp into a singularity, doesn't mean that there is automatically sunlight to go in after him (which as has been explained in previous responses is no longer sunlight anyway).

It's funny how when people try to explain things as physicalities they go "It's supernatural, it works different". Crickey, really, I thought magic was real

You need to explain what you mean here.

However, based on what I think you're saying, my Response is that if you can't wrap your head around the general extraphysicality of magic in the Palladium Universe, then that's your problem; I'll bet that your GMs in the past used to tear their hair out as they described a magic effect and you tried to Rules Lawyer them with your opinions as to why something physical should be a good countermeasure.

Let me guess: you tried to convince your GM that you could stake a vampire with stakes made of plastic with that fake wood texture on the outside?? Or maybe you tried to use Onion instead of Garlic??

There is no right answer, but saying nothing exists except vampires is just silly

Depends on the situation; Zavors and Weres are just two types of creatures who wouldn't necessarily be harmed by Black Holes, either.

Ceizyk wrote:… Wow guys okay seriously here we go

First. The Vampire Kingdom book mentions in no given place that Vampires, Master or otherwise are NOT subject to Physics,

Sure, it does; the descriptions of vampiric abilities, nature, and their bodies screams it at you.

their mist form still can only move as fast as someone jogging. It’s mentioned someplace that they do not breath there for are immune to vacuums.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in Ciudad Juarez??

The Black whole has gravitational forces well beyond anything humans have yet to fully understand yet alone identify, we’ve got some pretty good ideas but nothing solid.

And?? It's still physics.

So here’s the solution to the black hole question, in kind, if vampires are not subject to physics while in a mist form (which I don’t know why they wouldn’t be EVERY other Supernatural creature is) then why haven’t they escaped earths orbit?

A]] What is up there for them to eat that they know of??

B]] Given the slow, slow speed of their mist forms, how do you propose that they even get up there (you need to travel 250 miles UP from the Earth's surface to get to space proper) and to a shelter before the sun comes back round again??

C]] Vampires require a bed lining made of the soil of the homeland, which I suspect is sorely lacking up there....and if they don't have it come sun-up, they will IMMEDIATELY and DELIBERATELY expose themselves to the sun.

It’s a GM’s decision and their call

You may be new or fairly new, so a bit of constructive criticism: when you ask for an answer within the Forums, unless you specify otherwise, every answer given to you will be based upon game canon.

OBVIOUSLY, everything that a GM wants to call, he or she can; that response is therefore uaeless as a forum answer.

and EVERY other supernatural creature you toss into a black hole would get screwed

See previous response; there are other creatures whose bodies won't necessarily respond to the destructive effects of a black hole even though they have sufficient mass/weight to be sucked in.

even if they would mist themselves via some supernatural aspect of not, and even if they could … you want jog through space? Haha cool see you in a few million years, they don’t gain acceleration and … wonder if mist is subject to sunlight effects? So in effect it would kill them one way or another, and if the vampire was smart the black hole may not kill them but knowing if they leave it’s event horizon it would kill them might be an example of killing them or their life imprisonment.

Just my 2 cents

I never said that a Cake Party was awaiting them on the 'outside' of the singularity, just that they wouldn't necessarily be subject to its destructive physical effects.

I create vampires as per HU2, and it is my understanding that while they might not die, what with being immortal, they would be trapped in a black hole.
That is my two cents, whatever it is worth.

DamonS wrote:

asajosh wrote:

DamonS wrote:Exhaustive Mind-wipe. A Vampire Vegetable is for all practical purposes dead.

This mind wipe business is flawed on so many levels, where to begin...
Assuming your using the books and not your own bizzare set of house rules:
Lets start with the fact that the psychic has to make physical contact with his victim. Vampires can transform into mist and slip away no problem.

Oooh, I leave for a couple days and my my doesn't the venom overcome the common sense.

For starters, I had no idea the ideas posted for alternate vampire killing would be disqualified if 'physical contact' was a pre-requisite.

I guess wood and silver are also out, since they *also* require physical contact and are *also* rendered useless if the vampire turns to mist..... unless of course the above is a very stupid objection... It never is good to begin somewhere stupid, but there you go.

asajosh wrote:Now assuming the vampire "forgot" he can become mist, and the psychic in question doesnt burn himself out wiping (premanenetly buring off 4 ME points), a vampire with no memory IS STILL A VAMPIRE! The desire (need) to consume blood is instinctive!!
Even if someone mind wiped a normal person totally would they forget that they can walk? Or, more precisely, eat? no they would not. Any assertion that a creature devoid of memories would not know how or what to eat is plain silly. Of course, I have the feeling that when you GM (and its not a solo campaign), characters have to take things like walking, breathing, etc, as skills or you'd rule that they cannot do it.

For game purposes, Mind-Wipe wipes memories (what did i have for breakfast yesterday? Who is this person who calls himself my friend? Why can't I remember my childhood? etc), not skills (language and literacy). It does not cause the victim to lapse into a coma-like state of living death or cause them to collapse on the floor drooling unable to move or act.

This post tells me that someone here has never seen a human who truly has *no* memories.... which is sad, because most of us have, it's quite beautiful. Newborn babies, 100% instinct, almost no memories (because they've not been alive long enough to have any). There you go. When the hungry newborn pops out knowing how to feed itself, then I'll be proven wrong. However, as things go, no matter how hungry a newborn is, they only know how to do two things, cry, and swallow *IF* something is put to their lips. Animals have a lot fewer instincts than you might think.

Newborn babies, literally, don't even know how to *crawl*, they learn that. If it can be learned, it can be forgotten (This can even be done non-psionically, there are non-psionic ways to wipe skills out).

It is interesting, Mind wipe wipes out memories, but there are no statements in it about how many memories someone has and what it would take to wipe them *all* out. The rules for mind wipes and the ilk are there for general game usage, and for the ideas that a mind melter will wipe some memories, but not all. But here's a common sense thing, if you wipe someone's mind enough, you *will* start making them lose their ability to function. Like so many things in RPG's, it begins to break down when you increase the scale, and this is where common sense comes in. Especially since there are mechanisms in Rifts where skills and literacies CAN be lost. Memories, they tell you you can lose them, but they never tell you how many you have. It's up to the GM to determine how many is *all*.

How close to a Vegetable can you put someone... with enough mind wiping? I would call Terry Shaivo an example of a model for what an 'exhaustive mind wipe' would do... then again, I also would say " a coma-like state of living death....... on the floor drooling unable to move or act." is a pretty fair description of what that state of affairs is. It's never said how close to this point you can put someone in game.

The mind wipe idea is very simple.... people have only so many memories, wipe them *all* out, and they will become as newborns (The book doesn't say what wiping out EVERY memory would do, nor does it say how many memories people have, so you have to ponder it). Vampires, regenerate wounds, but *not* memories. It's thinking outside the box. It would require a lot of mind wiping, obviously, and probably a lot more trouble than its worth. But logically speaking, enough mind wiping would do it.

And the idea of mind-melters taking revenge on someone by mind wiping them so much that they revert to the state of newborns or to being a human vegetable... Really, if they are UNABLE to do that, then do they really earn the name mind MELTER?

Babies instinctively start suckling motions moments after birth, with no external stimuli. Maybe when you're old enough, you'll see this experience first hand. All mammals have a similar reaction. Do some research before you post.

Over and over again, you are too liberal with mind wipe (to the point of being absurd). Its written down for you right there, but you do not read. I'm seriously starting to doubt whether you own any books at all. Continue to play by yourself DamonS.

I'll reiterate, if it worked on Dracula in Monster Squad, it works on Vamps in Palladium. You pike the Vamp on a steel post, open the black hole and he, Van Helsing, Wolfman, The Creature from the Black Lagoon and even the misunderstood and Loveable, Frankenstein's Monster get sucked in, leaving only your plucky child heroes.

Its really that simple people, why all the debate

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:So the name "Impervious to Fire" has nothing to do with the power?
Riight.
You go on thinking that.

Names and descriptions define the powers and how they operate.

The name 'Impervious to Fire' describes a theme effect, the *rules* for it can vary wildly, from the original 1/10th damage from MD flame of a burster (Impervious to fire and heat) to the current total immunity it provides with the 3rd level spell or the half damage from magic fires that you get from the psionic power.

There you go!
It describes the general effects.
That's a great leap forward from your previous indications that the name doesn't have anything to do with the function of the power.
I'm proud of you.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You're stretching farther and farther with each post, dude.

Well, pointing out basic black and white text didn't seem to bring any understanding, so I'm working my way out on tangents to see if there's any way you can actually be made to admit to your mistake.
So far, I think there's little chance of it.

Can't admit to mistakes I haven't made, so no.

Killer Cyborg wrote:"Known", huh?
So what you're saying is that there were secred vulnerabilities that vampires had, but that the writers didn't "know" what they were?
That's a load of crap, as I keep pointing out.
You keep getting the real world confused with the gameworld.

In the real world, the writers know what the vulnerabilities of vampires are, because they're the ones who make them up.
They can later make up new vulnerabilities, but that's all.
They can't "discover" new vulnerabilities, because all that exists of these imaginary vampires is what is written in the books.

You keep saying that as though it in some way is a worthwhile point... I guess trying to sidestep the whole issue is the only way you have left to pull a 'win' from this one... But here we go again.

The description that the writers put down in the books is their conception of a fantasy creature for the purpose of other people to play with it. It describes the 'IC reality' of the beasties, and as such, is subject to IC continuity. In the case of Vampires, they can slap down the usual weaknesses because well, *everyone* in the (classic western-european-centric and a lot of other places too) world has heard of the them.
In the case of a never-seen-before beastie from the Rifts (such as those presented in the original rules, p250), ill-equipped players would be expected to 'discover' a weakness in-play, perhaps by use of DM Lore or just simple experiment. OOCly both will have been created in advance (one by the writer, the other by the GM), and both will have pre-set weaknesses.
Neither of these prevents their being other, as yet undescribed or undiscovered (read unwritten, but not necessarily unthought of) weaknesses.

The underlined shows that you are slowly gaining an inkling of how reality and the gameworld are different.

Now this seems to leave you making the rather absurd claim that the uranium vulnerability was thought of by the authors when VK was written, but that it wasn't set to ink until Triax.
Which doesn't make sense, and isn't true, but at least it's better than what you were saying before.

Killer Cyborg wrote:lol
Resorting to talking to dead people for support.
Nice.

Well, you weren't having any luck with the living, so maybe you'd listen to the Other Side. ^_^

I'll happily listen to somebody who makes sense, whether they're dead or alive.
Unfortunately, none of these people are on your side with this.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Before Triax, if a character tried Uranium rounds against a vampire, then it wouldn't have had any effect because vampires were invulnerable to kinetic attacks (bullets specifically) and to radiation.
After Triax, uranium rounds hurt vampires.

This is a change.
It's that simple.

Except that prior to Triax doing it, no-one had.

Interesting claim; prove it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:How does "Vampires are invulnerable to bullets" and "vampires are invulnerable to radiation" end up meaning "vampires are vulnerable to radioactive bullets" and still make any sense?
It doesn't.
U-Rounds are a change in the rules, and they don't fit with continuity.

Your version doesn't fit continuity; it just pretends that there's continuity where it doesn't exist.

Because - and I can't believe that *I* have to point this out to you - Vampires are *magic-made-up-things* and don't, strictly speaking, have to make sense, so long as they follow some level of internal consistancy.

???
I point out that your version of things doesn't follow continuity, and you respond by saying that this is because vampires should follow some level of internal consistancy.
Which is what I already pointed out they don't do in your theory.

In this instance we know that Palladium vampires are somewhat descriptively tied to the element of earth (the grave dirt, vulnerable to wood and pure silver, etc), we know that they're immune or resistant to a whole range of things, but not necessarily all things as you strangely seem to believe.

I mean, if I bang one on the head with a tyre iron it ignores me... present said iron as a cross, and it hisses and backs off, bang it on the head with the tyre iron cross and it gets one hell of an ouchie. It's not so far to go from that to 'bullets bounce off, radiation doesn't pierce its skin... but this specific metal, like silver can pierce their flesh, and when the radiation is inside them, it messes with their mojo'.

But by your logic, since "being hit in the head with a tire iron" isn't listed as one of their specific immunities, they might well be vulnerable to it.
And if a future book listed that as one of their weaknesses, your argument would be that this isn't a change; that it's always been that way, it's just that nobody ever tried to hit a vampire in the head with a tire iron before.

Killer Cyborg wrote:In this case, I'm repeating your argument back to you, and you can't understand it.
And you're blaming me.

I'm not sure how that fits with your "Brit vs. American" take on things.

Because I keep trying to explain this to you in a range of different ways - as you yourself have admitted - in between repeating the same tired arguments back at you that you keep misunderstanding or ignoring, and you keep going 'I'm right, you must just be completely unable to understand things'.

Actually, it fits rather well - and it's not my take on things, but rather just a quote I read that I'll have to try and chase down later. ^_^

That doesn't really explain why you can't understand your own argument, but I probably shouldn't have expected your answer here to make any sense either.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only not at all.
Changes in the rules don't support the idea that there haven't been changes in the rules.

And there have been changes, many changes, all over the place.

It just wasn't necessary to change these ones, just because you misread them.

You keep saying that, but have provided no evidence that it's true.

Killer Cyborg wrote::roll:

"I'm rubber, you're glue..."

It does seem to be going that way, doesn't it? - But until you can actually come up with an argument that isn't 'I'm me, so therefore I'm right', I don't see that it's likely to change.

Whether or not you believe I'm right doesn't affect whether I actually am right.
It does affect whether you can accept the right answer when it's presented to you, but that doesn't really affect me either way.

In short, I don't really care whether you change your opinion here or not.

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:I'll reiterate, if it worked on Dracula in Monster Squad, it works on Vamps in Palladium. You pike the Vamp on a steel post, open the black hole and he, Van Helsing, Wolfman, The Creature from the Black Lagoon and even the misunderstood and Loveable, Frankenstein's Monster get sucked in, leaving only your plucky child heroes.

Its really that simple people, why all the debate

Because Monster Squad sucked, and has no place in any sort of debate.

Ceizyk wrote:First ouch cornholioprime, and here I thought this was a discussion board with answering questions not someone turning into a fanatic. First your comment of being new, I’ve played Palladium based games for the last 14 years, and been a GM for 7 of them.

It should have been obvious from the flavor of my response that I was referring to your newness to the Forums, not newness (or lack thereof) as a Player/GM; almost nobody who comes to these Boards is new to the game itself.

And yes, I do think that you're a Forum N00b if you expect a House Rule answer when you ask a question here.

Second I’ve re-read the Vampire Empire book, and it says NOTHING, anyplace about them being immune or less effected by Physics....

Really??

What about Immortality, metamorphosis into mist, vulnerability to a host of strange and incongruous conditions and total invulnerability to most other things says "Laws of Physics" to you??

...or any form of gravity other then they FLY through it so wind conditions would still effect them, so if you can give me a page number with it saying that I will believe you. It mentions NO place in the book, that supernatural mists have the ability to render themselves immune to physics or gravity, and unless you can give me a page or someone from Palladium backing you up and not fly by the seat of your pants you can stuff it right now. Now as for anything screaming at you, I’m sorry but if you’re a GM or player and fly by the seat of your pants by what screams at you vs. what the books say then I’m sorry for your players or fellow players.

While you're flying off the handle, let me remind you that in my previous Posting I said that it could be argued that Vampires may escape a Black Hole in mist form, not that they automatically could.

So put down the caffeine, and pick up the reading glasses, okay??

And I was answering Aaryq’s question if a black hole would kill a Vampire. In reality or physics or if you prefer for a fantasy Sci-Fi based world, a mist is still subject to other events. Now as the book declares that they are immune to all forms of physical damage other then the ones that would otherwise kill them. Several things can happen A. they float there looking rather annoyed as they do retain their mass and are sucked inward or B. While in mist form for the book and NO other palladium book declares them immune to gravity sucks them effectively holding or trapping them or C. a GM assuming that the black hole over powers their immunity by simply compressing them smaller but does not do the effective damage to slay them, then again GM's choice.

It 's amazing to see how firmly you're fixated on the whole Mist thing when I only offered it as a possibility for further debate.

So my previous response wasn’t in anyway shape or form designed to respond to anything you may have said earlier as I wasn’t looking for your posts within 10 pages of postings. My only concern was answering the original topic posed by someone else and not you, and my answer was intended to supply a sci-fi based answer with the knowledge that vampires are one of the hardest things within the Palladium and Rifts universe to “kill” and make them stay dead.

And??

We agree on the relative difficulty of killing vampires. So what??

I agree, and one final note on if Vampires are not affected by Physics and or Gravity. Congratulations ALL vampires who turn to Mist on Earth the Earth now rockets away from you at 1000+ MPH and your now floating in space going well crap, due to gravity and physics having no influence over you in mist-form.

Wow.

Talk about turning simple arithmetic into Advanced Calculus.
As should be incredibly, painfully apparent, Kevin doesn't take into account each and every scientific possibility when he makes creature A Megadamage or Cyborg B's internal bits invulnerable to attack or, in this case, make vampires simultaneously invulnerable to almost everything yet vulnerable to a few, unrelated things; he's just interested in creating a good gameplay situation.

So, no, he doesn't have to ponder the real-world implications of what would really happen if Anti-gravity were employed by spell or technology, nor does he even try.

Because you cannot have them be immune to Black holes gravity, then assume they suddenly don't get left behind as the earth or any other stellar object gravity no longer effects them and leaves them behind. So take your pick, I've consulted several other GM's who's been playing Palladiums Games sense it first started in the 80's and they all gave me a dumb-found look when I told them about your idea of immune to gravity they only laughed inquring if you ever listened to yourself and what you tried to shovel.

Again, to remind you of the painfully obvious, Mr Hawking , this is a fictional role-playing game, not a quantum physics primer; for this reason, there are several applications in the Palladium Megaverse, both technological and magical, that defy gravity all the time, and yet don't fly off the planetary surface.

Stuff in Rifts doesn't work because they make sense in the real world; stuff in Rifts "works perfectly" the way that it does because it's a fictional universe and some authors including Kevin sat down one day and said, "wow, THIS would look cool! Let's put into a Worldbook!"

Think first Act second, Try it, it might surprise you.

I'd have to say that I, the person in this back-and-forth who realizes that the fiction that is Palladium/Rifts doesn't have to make sense in the real world, IS the the one thinking here, as opposed to the other guy -you -who is getting his panties in a bunch trying to fit Rifts/Palladium into real-world relativity.

Cheers.

A pretty good TV show for most of its run; Kirstie Alley was still pretty hot in those days.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:I'll reiterate, if it worked on Dracula in Monster Squad, it works on Vamps in Palladium. You pike the Vamp on a steel post, open the black hole and he, Van Helsing, Wolfman, The Creature from the Black Lagoon and even the misunderstood and Loveable, Frankenstein's Monster get sucked in, leaving only your plucky child heroes.

Its really that simple people, why all the debate

Because Monster Squad sucked, and has no place in any sort of debate.

prove it

seriously, if a black hole has enough gravitational pull to pull in light, it should easily be able to contain a vampire (or anything else made of any type of matter). Kill it...? no, id say. but contain it within its gravity abolutely... But here's the kicker: There is a corona of visible light surrounding black holes! It comes from the low levels of ambient light being pulled in from all around (light has properties of both a particle and a wave). I should think that a vampire would be burned by this corona, just as if it were outside in the daylight, long before it even gets to said black hole

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:I'll reiterate, if it worked on Dracula in Monster Squad, it works on Vamps in Palladium. You pike the Vamp on a steel post, open the black hole and he, Van Helsing, Wolfman, The Creature from the Black Lagoon and even the misunderstood and Loveable, Frankenstein's Monster get sucked in, leaving only your plucky child heroes.

Its really that simple people, why all the debate

Because Monster Squad sucked, and has no place in any sort of debate.

prove it

Well, if you started a thead on the subject in the Gamers Who Like More Than Games forum, I could prove it.
But that would require rewatching the film, and I'd rather not have to do that.

asajosh wrote:seriously, if a black hole has enough gravitational pull to pull in light, it should easily be able to contain a vampire (or anything else made of any type of matter). Kill it...? no, id say. but contain it within its gravity abolutely... But here's the kicker: There is a corona of visible light surrounding black holes! It comes from the low levels of ambient light being pulled in from all around (light has properties of both a particle and a wave). I should think that a vampire would be burned by this corona, just as if it were outside in the daylight, long before it even gets to said black hole

No, there's not a "corona of light" visible around a black hole unless it is drawing stellar matter into it....and most black holes aren't in binary systems, they're just solitary, large stars that once exceeded the Schwarzchild Radius (our own sun is too small), and which have already eaten up everything around them. Furthermore, the 'light' that does get sucked in, may be nothing more than distant starlight.

(Of course, if the black hole in question is part of a binary pair, the nearby sun will toast the vampire in question long before he falls in.)

We "see" most black holes by the light from distant sources that they bend around them, and/or their "mass wobble" (ALL massive objects in the universe bend spacetime to lesser or greater degrees, and we can see some of those distortions with mass spectrometers), and in some cases, when they are part of a binary pair or eating up massive amounts of matter and 'emitting' Hawking Radiation.

Otherwise, I agree with you on all points; it would suck to be magically invulnerable and immortal, and then fall into one of these things -most Black Holes are going to be around for a very looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

bob the desolate one wrote:bam killed that thread

Assassin.

bob the desolate one wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Assassin.

resurectionist (if thats even a real word)

It is now.

Resurrectionist is indeed a word, but you spelled it wrong.

back on topic.

Should a black hole kill a vampire. A scientific spacial phenomenon against a supernatural being that defies all the laws of science, while eating the scientist.

Hmmm. I'm going to go with whatever makes the story better. I think it a perfectly reasonable end to a uber-vamp that the PC can't get rid of any other way, while allowing just enough quasi-rule munchiness to allow said uber-vamp somehow escape at a latter time to plague the heroes once more.

cornholioprime wrote:

asajosh wrote:seriously, if a black hole has enough gravitational pull to pull in light, it should easily be able to contain a vampire (or anything else made of any type of matter). Kill it...? no, id say. but contain it within its gravity abolutely... But here's the kicker: There is a corona of visible light surrounding black holes! It comes from the low levels of ambient light being pulled in from all around (light has properties of both a particle and a wave). I should think that a vampire would be burned by this corona, just as if it were outside in the daylight, long before it even gets to said black hole

No, there's not a "corona of light" visible around a black hole unless it is drawing stellar matter into it....and most black holes aren't in binary systems, they're just solitary, large stars that once exceeded the Schwarzchild Radius (our own sun is too small), and which have already eaten up everything around them. Furthermore, the 'light' that does get sucked in, may be nothing more than distant starlight.

(Of course, if the black hole in question is part of a binary pair, the nearby sun will toast the vampire in question long before he falls in.)

We "see" most black holes by the light from distant sources that they bend around them, and/or their "mass wobble" (ALL massive objects in the universe bend spacetime to lesser or greater degrees, and we can see some of those distortions with mass spectrometers), and in some cases, when they are part of a binary pair or eating up massive amounts of matter and 'emitting' Hawking Radiation.

Otherwise, I agree with you on all points; it would suck to be magically invulnerable and immortal, and then fall into one of these things -most Black Holes are going to be around for a very looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

And you wouldn't think that this corona, no matter its source, would have enough "volume" (for lack of a beter word) to serve as a sunlight based attack? Globe of daylight keeps them at bay and its far less intense...
I would, but as I haven't had any "undead in space" in my campaigns yet, it hasn't come up.

Not trying to pick a posting-fight, just putting it out there. Im not a particle physicist or astrophysicist, and you sound like you might be

asajosh wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:

asajosh wrote:seriously, if a black hole has enough gravitational pull to pull in light, it should easily be able to contain a vampire (or anything else made of any type of matter). Kill it...? no, id say. but contain it within its gravity abolutely... But here's the kicker: There is a corona of visible light surrounding black holes! It comes from the low levels of ambient light being pulled in from all around (light has properties of both a particle and a wave). I should think that a vampire would be burned by this corona, just as if it were outside in the daylight, long before it even gets to said black hole

No, there's not a "corona of light" visible around a black hole unless it is drawing stellar matter into it....and most black holes aren't in binary systems, they're just solitary, large stars that once exceeded the Schwarzchild Radius (our own sun is too small), and which have already eaten up everything around them. Furthermore, the 'light' that does get sucked in, may be nothing more than distant starlight.

(Of course, if the black hole in question is part of a binary pair, the nearby sun will toast the vampire in question long before he falls in.)

We "see" most black holes by the light from distant sources that they bend around them, and/or their "mass wobble" (ALL massive objects in the universe bend spacetime to lesser or greater degrees, and we can see some of those distortions with mass spectrometers), and in some cases, when they are part of a binary pair or eating up massive amounts of matter and 'emitting' Hawking Radiation.

Otherwise, I agree with you on all points; it would suck to be magically invulnerable and immortal, and then fall into one of these things -most Black Holes are going to be around for a very looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

And you wouldn't think that this corona, no matter its source, would have enough "volume" (for lack of a beter word) to serve as a sunlight based attack? Globe of daylight keeps them at bay and its far less intense...
I would, but as I haven't had any "undead in space" in my campaigns yet, it hasn't come up.

Not trying to pick a posting-fight, just putting it out there. Im not a particle physicist or astrophysicist, and you sound like you might be

Se, that's the weird thing: unless th black hole is drawing in the matter and light of a nearby star, the light being drawn into the singularity, if any, should be of such small amounts that it likely wouldn't be any more powerful than moonlight.

And no, I'm not the astrophysicist around here....the Forum Member known as Qev is.

Interesting point, Cornholio. Can I call you Corn? makes for faster typing.
Im gonna have to do some googling on black holes

asajosh wrote:Interesting point, Cornholio. Can I call you Corn? makes for faster typing.
Im gonna have to do some googling on black holes

Most everyone calls me Corn.

Except for those few who occasionally call me that which a Corn Cob is sometimes used for....