Vampires vs Star Phases

[LostOne]

I'm curious, has anyone given though to the various lifecycles of stars and how they affect vampires? Perhaps some do more damage to a vampire on a habitable planet in it's orbit than others? Maybe some don't harm vampires at all?

Anvil Galaxy gave info about phases of stars, but sadly I don't remember anything being mentioned about their supernatural properties in the various phases.

[Nekira Sudacne]

the lifecycle has no real effect on vampires and there's no reason it should. any natural sunlight, sun being defined as whatever local star(s) there are, will suffice to destroy them.

[Nightmask]

the lifecycle has no real effect on vampires and there's no reason it should. any natural sunlight, sun being defined as whatever local star(s) there are, will suffice to destroy them.

But does intensity/brightness have no impact on how effective it would be?

[dragonfett]

I would have to say yes as the spell Globe of Daylight is described as natural sunlight, but it affects a small area, based on level (I believe), and only keeps vampires at bay and doesn't hurt them.

[Rimmerdal]

the lifecycle has no real effect on vampires and there's no reason it should. any natural sunlight, sun being defined as whatever local star(s) there are, will suffice to destroy them.

But does intensity/brightness have no impact on how effective it would be?

I would say it affects how long it takes to affect them..ie give the vamp a better save..but the damage would be the same as I see it.

[Rimmerdal]

I would have to say yes as the spell Globe of Daylight is described as natural sunlight, but it affects a small area, based on level (I believe), and only keeps vampires at bay and doesn't hurt them.

Its magical sunlight. so it not Real sunlight so it won't kill. Now there may be some higher alternative versions I'm unaware of. Personally I'd make one but not an area effect spell maybe..Hmm

[Nightmask]

I would have to say yes as the spell Globe of Daylight is described as natural sunlight, but it affects a small area, based on level (I believe), and only keeps vampires at bay and doesn't hurt them.

Its magical sunlight. so it not Real sunlight so it won't kill. Now there may be some higher alternative versions I'm unaware of. Personally I'd make one but not an area effect spell maybe..Hmm

It's still considered 'real' sunlight (otherwise it wouldn't hold them at bay).

In regards to alternatives, 'Ignite Positive Chi' will cause all the positive chi-bearing things in the area including living creatures to fill the area with sunlight, harming all things affected by sunlight like vampires. If the natural amount of chi in the area is high enough (5 or more points) it will run continuously for 2 melee rounds. 'Radiate Positive Chi' is an Advanced Positive Chi ability that works similarly, as the character can cause themselves to glow with the light of the sun and cause damage to all light-harmed creatures like vampires in the range of it.

[Warshield73]

the lifecycle has no real effect on vampires and there's no reason it should. any natural sunlight, sun being defined as whatever local star(s) there are, will suffice to destroy them.

But does intensity/brightness have no impact on how effective it would be?

I would say it affects how long it takes to affect them..ie give the vamp a better save..but the damage would be the same as I see it.

I have actually played it this way in my Phase World campaign. Brighter stars do more damage, dimmer stars do less. However, I have not had it effect the HF or penalties for operating at daytime as I have always viewed that as an elemental thing.

[Rimmerdal]

I would have to say yes as the spell Globe of Daylight is described as natural sunlight, but it affects a small area, based on level (I believe), and only keeps vampires at bay and doesn't hurt them.

Its magical sunlight. so it not Real sunlight so it won't kill. Now there may be some higher alternative versions I'm unaware of. Personally I'd make one but not an area effect spell maybe..Hmm

It's still considered 'real' sunlight (otherwise it wouldn't hold them at bay).

In regards to alternatives, 'Ignite Positive Chi' will cause all the positive chi-bearing things in the area including living creatures to fill the area with sunlight, harming all things affected by sunlight like vampires. If the natural amount of chi in the area is high enough (5 or more points) it will run continuously for 2 melee rounds. 'Radiate Positive Chi' is an Advanced Positive Chi ability that works similarly, as the character can cause themselves to glow with the light of the sun and cause damage to all light-harmed creatures like vampires in the range of it.

If it (Globe of Daylight spell) were real sunlight...it would kill. but lets save that for another thread maybe.

I did forget chi did get kills on vamps. Will need reread N&SS and Mystic China again.

[Nekira Sudacne]

the lifecycle has no real effect on vampires and there's no reason it should. any natural sunlight, sun being defined as whatever local star(s) there are, will suffice to destroy them.

But does intensity/brightness have no impact on how effective it would be?

Not as long as the planets close enough to be in orbit around the star for that star to be considered one of it's suns. Obviously, there does come a point away from the solar system where it's no longer intense enough or else starlight would be fatal at night. so as long as your close enough for Sunlight to be considered sunlight and not starlight, then it has the full effectiveness. if you're far enough away it's considered starlight, then you are fine.

magical weakness's don't have fading degrees of effectiveness. it's an on-off switch. either it is sunlight for full effectiveness or it is not sunlight for zero effectiveness.

[Rimmerdal]

Would Clouds of different types block sun? Say like the Matrix cartoon on you tube were the humans tried to black out the sun to de-power the robots.

[arouetta]

Would Clouds of different types block sun? Say like the Matrix cartoon on you tube were the humans tried to black out the sun to de-power the robots.

I would doubt it. Sunlight that reaches earth is almost exclusively UV, visible and IR. Lightbulbs give off very little UV, but a lot of visible light and IR radiation. So with that logic, it would have to be the UV that bothers vampires. Clouds blunt the impact of UV a little but not a lot and can even have a paradoxical effect, allowing more UV than usual at ground level at times.

[dragonfett]

the lifecycle has no real effect on vampires and there's no reason it should. any natural sunlight, sun being defined as whatever local star(s) there are, will suffice to destroy them.

But does intensity/brightness have no impact on how effective it would be?

Not as long as the planets close enough to be in orbit around the star for that star to be considered one of it's suns. Obviously, there does come a point away from the solar system where it's no longer intense enough or else starlight would be fatal at night. so as long as your close enough for Sunlight to be considered sunlight and not starlight, then it has the full effectiveness. if you're far enough away it's considered starlight, then you are fine.

magical weakness's don't have fading degrees of effectiveness. it's an on-off switch. either it is sunlight for full effectiveness or it is not sunlight for zero effectiveness.

Actually, I don't find that to be true. If the planet is about half a billion miles from a star about the size of our sun, then there wouldn't be enough sun light to affect the vampire. Here is a link to a someone who made a comparison of what the sun would look like from the different planets in our solar system. Past Jupiter, the sun looks like nothing more than another star, albeit brighter than then rest.

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2012/01/ ... -or-pluto/

[Nekira Sudacne]

the lifecycle has no real effect on vampires and there's no reason it should. any natural sunlight, sun being defined as whatever local star(s) there are, will suffice to destroy them.

But does intensity/brightness have no impact on how effective it would be?

Not as long as the planets close enough to be in orbit around the star for that star to be considered one of it's suns. Obviously, there does come a point away from the solar system where it's no longer intense enough or else starlight would be fatal at night. so as long as your close enough for Sunlight to be considered sunlight and not starlight, then it has the full effectiveness. if you're far enough away it's considered starlight, then you are fine.

magical weakness's don't have fading degrees of effectiveness. it's an on-off switch. either it is sunlight for full effectiveness or it is not sunlight for zero effectiveness.

Actually, I don't find that to be true. If the planet is about half a billion miles from a star about the size of our sun, then there wouldn't be enough sun light to affect the vampire. Here is a link to a someone who made a comparison of what the sun would look like from the different planets in our solar system. Past Jupiter, the sun looks like nothing more than another star, albeit brighter than then rest.

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2012/01/ ... -or-pluto/

Err, I'm not certain how you determine that half a billion miles is the cutoff point. it may be a tiny dot in the sky, but it is still the sun and thus still going to fry you. It's not like intensity-brightness of the sun light is ever listed as a relevant factor, merely that it be the sun's true light.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Would Clouds of different types block sun? Say like the Matrix cartoon on you tube were the humans tried to black out the sun to de-power the robots.

No, cloudy days don't help vampires.

[Warshield73]

Err, I'm not certain how you determine that half a billion miles is the cutoff point. it may be a tiny dot in the sky, but it is still the sun and thus still going to fry you. It's not like intensity-brightness of the sun light is ever listed as a relevant factor, merely that it be the sun's true light.

Distance would have to be a factor, if not then vamps could not come out at night with all the stars in the sky or the reflection of sunlight from a full moon. Distance is a factor, the question is how far and there is no specific answer listed for that.

I have always kept it simple, if your in a star system and sunlight is striking the hull of your ship or station then the star is powerful enough to hurt and give penalties for operating in day, if your in interstellar space then it is permanent midnight.

Have to agree that regular cloud cover would have not effect but I have to wonder if the "clouds" from an asteroid impact or super volcano eruption would have at least a temporary on the suns damage to vamps. Now the penalties for vamps operating during the day would not be reduced since those apply even underground.

[eliakon]

I would have to say yes as the spell Globe of Daylight is described as natural sunlight, but it affects a small area, based on level (I believe), and only keeps vampires at bay and doesn't hurt them.

Its magical sunlight. so it not Real sunlight so it won't kill. Now there may be some higher alternative versions I'm unaware of. Personally I'd make one but not an area effect spell maybe..Hmm

It's still considered 'real' sunlight (otherwise it wouldn't hold them at bay).

In regards to alternatives, 'Ignite Positive Chi' will cause all the positive chi-bearing things in the area including living creatures to fill the area with sunlight, harming all things affected by sunlight like vampires. If the natural amount of chi in the area is high enough (5 or more points) it will run continuously for 2 melee rounds. 'Radiate Positive Chi' is an Advanced Positive Chi ability that works similarly, as the character can cause themselves to glow with the light of the sun and cause damage to all light-harmed creatures like vampires in the range of it.

If it (Globe of Daylight spell) were real sunlight...it would kill. but lets save that for another thread maybe.

I did forget chi did get kills on vamps. Will need reread N&SS and Mystic China again.

Mysteries of Magic pg 90 has a spell "Globe of True Sunlight" (emphasis mine) which says that its true sunlight and harms vampires, which implies that the regular 'Globe of Daylight" is fake Sunlight, close but not quite.

[Warshield73]

Mysteries of Magic pg 90 has a spell "Globe of True Sunlight" (emphasis mine) which says that its true sunlight and harms vampires, which implies that the regular 'Globe of Daylight" is fake Sunlight, close but not quite.

Just looked it up, that is an Air Warlock spell so regular mages can not get it. Still, great for Warlocks or even Elemental Fusionists. Would also be a nice power to give a rune weapon.

[dragonfett]

the lifecycle has no real effect on vampires and there's no reason it should. any natural sunlight, sun being defined as whatever local star(s) there are, will suffice to destroy them.

But does intensity/brightness have no impact on how effective it would be?

Not as long as the planets close enough to be in orbit around the star for that star to be considered one of it's suns. Obviously, there does come a point away from the solar system where it's no longer intense enough or else starlight would be fatal at night. so as long as your close enough for Sunlight to be considered sunlight and not starlight, then it has the full effectiveness. if you're far enough away it's considered starlight, then you are fine.

magical weakness's don't have fading degrees of effectiveness. it's an on-off switch. either it is sunlight for full effectiveness or it is not sunlight for zero effectiveness.

Actually, I don't find that to be true. If the planet is about half a billion miles from a star about the size of our sun, then there wouldn't be enough sun light to affect the vampire. Here is a link to a someone who made a comparison of what the sun would look like from the different planets in our solar system. Past Jupiter, the sun looks like nothing more than another star, albeit brighter than then rest.

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2012/01/ ... -or-pluto/

Err, I'm not certain how you determine that half a billion miles is the cutoff point. it may be a tiny dot in the sky, but it is still the sun and thus still going to fry you. It's not like intensity-brightness of the sun light is ever listed as a relevant factor, merely that it be the sun's true light.

I wasn't trying to state that half a billion miles was the cutoff sunlight damage to vampires, I was using that number because that is the number of miles that Jupiter is from the Sun and that was a comparison of what our Sun would look like to people on Jupiter (or one of it's moons or simply in Jupiter's orbit around the Sun).

The size of the star in question would matter a little, but there is no way that there is enough sunlight at that distance to make a vampire so much as flinch.

[Rimmerdal]

Mysteries of Magic pg 90 has a spell "Globe of True Sunlight" (emphasis mine) which says that its true sunlight and harms vampires, which implies that the regular 'Globe of Daylight" is fake Sunlight, close but not quite.

Just looked it up, that is an Air Warlock spell so regular mages can not get it. Still, great for Warlocks or even Elemental Fusionists. Would also be a nice power to give a rune weapon.

I can as GM understand that..if I could bottle up sunlight..ooh the things I could kill..or grow if I were so inclined to do that sort of thing.

So it harms, and could if you had unlimited mana and time...kill a vamp with it. provided you had a nice GM. another book to add to my list..

[Rimmerdal]

Err, I'm not certain how you determine that half a billion miles is the cutoff point. it may be a tiny dot in the sky, but it is still the sun and thus still going to fry you. It's not like intensity-brightness of the sun light is ever listed as a relevant factor, merely that it be the sun's true light.

Distance would have to be a factor, if not then vamps could not come out at night with all the stars in the sky or the reflection of sunlight from a full moon. Distance is a factor, the question is how far and there is no specific answer listed for that.

I have always kept it simple, if your in a star system and sunlight is striking the hull of your ship or station then the star is powerful enough to hurt and give penalties for operating in day, if your in interstellar space then it is permanent midnight.

Have to agree that regular cloud cover would have not effect but I have to wonder if the "clouds" from an asteroid impact or super volcano eruption would have at least a temporary on the suns damage to vamps. Now the penalties for vamps operating during the day would not be reduced since those apply even underground.

I'd say a volcano would. only downside is after and shortly after the eruption. Asteroid would likely work only around the impact..that is if the vamp survived. Considering the heat and if a fluke piece of wood staked him as the impact hit...lol!

[Warshield73]

Have to agree that regular cloud cover would have not effect but I have to wonder if the "clouds" from an asteroid impact or super volcano eruption would have at least a temporary on the suns damage to vamps. Now the penalties for vamps operating during the day would not be reduced since those apply even underground.

I'd say a volcano would. only downside is after and shortly after the eruption. Asteroid would likely work only around the impact..that is if the vamp survived.

Still say that it would only limit damage, and the penalties for being active at daytime would still apply.

Considering the heat and if a fluke piece of wood staked him as the impact hit...lol!

Worst vamp death ever.

[dragonfett]

Have to agree that regular cloud cover would have not effect but I have to wonder if the "clouds" from an asteroid impact or super volcano eruption would have at least a temporary on the suns damage to vamps. Now the penalties for vamps operating during the day would not be reduced since those apply even underground.

I'd say a volcano would. only downside is after and shortly after the eruption. Asteroid would likely work only around the impact..that is if the vamp survived.

Still say that it would only limit damage, and the penalties for being active at daytime would still apply.

Considering the heat and if a fluke piece of wood staked him as the impact hit...lol!

Worst vamp death ever.

Or an idea for the next book in the Series of Unfortunate Events line!

[LostOne]

That would mean, that vampires are free to operate in the vicinity of jupiter... except Jupiter etc is the brightest thing in the sky.

Jupiter is only bright because it reflects light from the sun, the same way the moon does. Light reflected by the moon does nothing to vampires.

[LostOne]

uh.. Jupiter produces its own light, same with saturn and neptune. they're Gas giants for a reason. Uranus does not for some reason.

Ok, didn't know that. However, they're not stars, so I wouldn't think the light they produce would affect vampires.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I wasn't trying to state that half a billion miles was the cutoff sunlight damage to vampires, I was using that number because that is the number of miles that Jupiter is from the Sun and that was a comparison of what our Sun would look like to people on Jupiter (or one of it's moons or simply in Jupiter's orbit around the Sun).

The size of the star in question would matter a little, but there is no way that there is enough sunlight at that distance to make a vampire so much as flinch.

And i'm asking what you base that assumption on. The rules say "Sunlight", not "sunlight <i>if it's really really close</i>

[Nekira Sudacne]

Err, I'm not certain how you determine that half a billion miles is the cutoff point. it may be a tiny dot in the sky, but it is still the sun and thus still going to fry you. It's not like intensity-brightness of the sun light is ever listed as a relevant factor, merely that it be the sun's true light.

Distance would have to be a factor, if not then vamps could not come out at night with all the stars in the sky or the reflection of sunlight from a full moon. Distance is a factor, the question is how far and there is no specific answer listed for that.

Starlight are distant stars, not your planets sun, therefor they fail the mystic "Sunlight" requirement.

Likewise, light reflected from the moon is mystically considered "moonlight"--intensity has nothing to do with it.

Essentially, if you are being hit by light from your sun, defined as "are you within that systems Oort cloud"--then it effects you regardless of distance. if it is being reflected by the moon/another astrological body, then it dosn't. I would presume giant space mirrors for fighting vamps would be likewise ineffective.

I have always kept it simple, if your in a star system and sunlight is striking the hull of your ship or station then the star is powerful enough to hurt and give penalties for operating in day, if your in interstellar space then it is permanent midnight.

I agree, if you are not in any stars system, then vampires can remain perpetually active.

Have to agree that regular cloud cover would have not effect but I have to wonder if the "clouds" from an asteroid impact or super volcano eruption would have at least a temporary on the suns damage to vamps. Now the penalties for vamps operating during the day would not be reduced since those apply even underground.

If it's completely black so no light is getting through, or enough that no light is getting through unreflected, then I agree.

basically, Sunlight only stops working past the Oort cloud, or if it bounces off a celestial body before hitting you.

[Nightmask]

Err, I'm not certain how you determine that half a billion miles is the cutoff point. it may be a tiny dot in the sky, but it is still the sun and thus still going to fry you. It's not like intensity-brightness of the sun light is ever listed as a relevant factor, merely that it be the sun's true light.

Distance would have to be a factor, if not then vamps could not come out at night with all the stars in the sky or the reflection of sunlight from a full moon. Distance is a factor, the question is how far and there is no specific answer listed for that.

Starlight are distant stars, not your planets sun, therefor they fail the mystic "Sunlight" requirement.

Likewise, light reflected from the moon is mystically considered "moonlight"--intensity has nothing to do with it.

Essentially, if you are being hit by light from your sun, defined as "are you within that systems Oort cloud"--then it effects you regardless of distance. if it is being reflected by the moon/another astrological body, then it dosn't. I would presume giant space mirrors for fighting vamps would be likewise ineffective.

Not seeing how you can make that claim, a sun is a sun and if the light is considered to be mystically damaging no matter how weak then you can't claim that the light from the Centauri system doesn't do damage because 'well it's not really sunlight it's starlight'. Sol is a star, the light from it is starlight, it's arbitrary semantic quibbling to try and claim that the sun closest to you is giving off sunlight but not any other star until you're within its star system. Plus not all suns have orbital bodies (rare though it is) so then if it hasn't an Oort cloud does that mean it does no damage then or does it mean that it does damage across the universe?

[Warshield73]

Just a point, we have veered off topic but as I have used Vampires in space I am curious how other people do it.

Also, since there are no hard and fast rules we should say that everyone is just giving best guesses and house rules.

Starlight are distant stars, not your planets sun, therefor they fail the mystic "Sunlight" requirement.

Likewise, light reflected from the moon is mystically considered "moonlight"--intensity has nothing to do with it.

By this reasoning vampires can not be hurt daylight anywhere else in the universe because the only planets, 8 of them, that have "sunlight" are in the sol system. Everything else is just star light.

I also have to agree that this is just semantic quibbling. Since there is no hard and fast rule playing word games really isn't necessary.

Essentially, if you are being hit by light from your sun, defined as "are you within that systems Oort cloud"--then it effects you regardless of distance.

Our systems Oort cloud is 1.6 light years from the system primary, at that distance the light from Sol is indistinguishable from any other star. I would point out that this is you, also, making an assumption.

if it is being reflected by the moon/another astrological body, then it dosn't. I would presume giant space mirrors for fighting vamps would be likewise ineffective.

Please, do tell, what do you base this assumption on?

basically, Sunlight only stops working past the Oort cloud, or if it bounces off a celestial body before hitting you.

Again, and I am sorry, but this is just as arbitrary as anything anyone else has said and given the distance I have already mentioned just doesn't make any sense.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Err, I'm not certain how you determine that half a billion miles is the cutoff point. it may be a tiny dot in the sky, but it is still the sun and thus still going to fry you. It's not like intensity-brightness of the sun light is ever listed as a relevant factor, merely that it be the sun's true light.

Distance would have to be a factor, if not then vamps could not come out at night with all the stars in the sky or the reflection of sunlight from a full moon. Distance is a factor, the question is how far and there is no specific answer listed for that.

Starlight are distant stars, not your planets sun, therefor they fail the mystic "Sunlight" requirement.

Likewise, light reflected from the moon is mystically considered "moonlight"--intensity has nothing to do with it.

Essentially, if you are being hit by light from your sun, defined as "are you within that systems Oort cloud"--then it effects you regardless of distance. if it is being reflected by the moon/another astrological body, then it dosn't. I would presume giant space mirrors for fighting vamps would be likewise ineffective.

Not seeing how you can make that claim, a sun is a sun and if the light is considered to be mystically damaging no matter how weak then you can't claim that the light from the Centauri system doesn't do damage because 'well it's not really sunlight it's starlight'. Sol is a star, the light from it is starlight, it's arbitrary semantic quibbling to try and claim that the sun closest to you is giving off sunlight but not any other star until you're within its star system. Plus not all suns have orbital bodies (rare though it is) so then if it hasn't an Oort cloud does that mean it does no damage then or does it mean that it does damage across the universe?

I'm making that claim because it's far more internally consistant than claiming that a vampire on pluto would somehow be immune to a suns rays just because the sun's rays are really far. it's STILL plutos sun, so it still frys them. this should not be such a conterversial statement as it's exactly what the rules state would happen.

as for not having an Oort could, that wouldn't really matter. it's not like i'm claiming the debree itself stops it, rather that that is the point beyond which you are no longer considered to be in a stars system, thus the point when it stops being a "sun" and becomes a "Star". the Oort cloud is merely the outer edge of it's gravity well, even a star with nothing orbiting it would still have a limit to it's gravity well equivlen to where an Oort cloud would be. It's not the Oort cloud itself, it's that all it is is where the outer limit of it's gravatational pull. all stars have a limit where their Oort cloud would be even if they don't actually have an Oort cloud, so if it makes you feel better, then amend my statement to be "A sun only stops damaging a vampire once that vampire is completely beyond it's gravity well and not before".

As for sunlight not being starlight, it's not semetics, it is litterally what the game is telling me. The vampires have a mystic weakness to sunlight, not starlight. the fact that science tells you that the sun is just a regular star dosn't really matter, because the fact that it's a star is irrelevent. that's important that this star is your sun, and it's the act of being your sun that makes it damage vampires.

your explination of "sunlight just stops working once you get too far" makes no sense with the rules we are given. if it's still sunlight, it still works. that's what the rules say, and nothing you've said so far convinces me they say otherwise.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Just a point, we have veered off topic but as I have used Vampires in space I am curious how other people do it.

Also, since there are no hard and fast rules we should say that everyone is just giving best guesses and house rules.

Starlight are distant stars, not your planets sun, therefor they fail the mystic "Sunlight" requirement.

Likewise, light reflected from the moon is mystically considered "moonlight"--intensity has nothing to do with it.

By this reasoning vampires can not be hurt daylight anywhere else in the universe because the only planets, 8 of them, that have "sunlight" are in the sol system. Everything else is just star light.

Except that vampires in Palladium fantasy also get fried by sunlight dispite that not being earth. unless you claim that earths sun is there too, clearly the rules mean to define the sun as whatever your local sun is. If you can make a convincing argument to the contrary i'd love to hear it. you can say it's "just" my interpretation vs yours, yes, but if I do say so myself, it makes a lot more sense than yours to me.

I also have to agree that this is just semantic quibbling. Since there is no hard and fast rule playing word games really isn't necessary.

I don't really see how saying the sun is you're local star is semetic quibbling. In fact I can't think of an argument more basic.

Essentially, if you are being hit by light from your sun, defined as "are you within that systems Oort cloud"--then it effects you regardless of distance.

Our systems Oort cloud is 1.6 light years from the system primary, at that distance the light from Sol is indistinguishable from any other star.

quite true--not that I am certain how that's relevent

I would point out that this is you, also, making an assumption.

Indeed, my claim is that this assumption makes more sense as it fits in better with the definition of "sun" than presuming that Sol is the only star in the universe that hurts vampires.

if it is being reflected by the moon/another astrological body, then it dosn't. I would presume giant space mirrors for fighting vamps would be likewise ineffective.

Please, do tell, what do you base this assumption on?

My previous postulates. Okay. I think I might need to explain the difference between an assumption and a posthulate, as this thread is getting them confused. I have outlined a series of postulates, and then based my assumptions on them.

A postulate is, yes, an assumtion you presume to be true due to observed evidence, and that you are comftable enough in to base further speclation on the foundation of it being true. All a scientific "law" is, is a postulate that has not yet been proven to not be true. I will grant that my postulates are on shakier ground than, say, the second law of thermodynamics, and again, if you can point me to a book and page number that disproves it, I will gladly change my tune.

My declaration that a sun is defined as whatever star system that a vampire is in the gravity well of works on the vampire is a postulate. I hold it to be true given the evidence and rules the books have presented me with. if you disagree with everything i've given to justify it so far, then you might as well stop debating me, because if it's not true, then every other argument and assumption I make falls apart.

My assumption that moonlight reflected off celestial bodies is another postulate, because clearly moonlight demonstrably does not harm vampires.

given those two posthulates, and assuming you will, for the sake of argument hold them to be true, then how I come to the "Space mirrors wouldn't work either" should be clear. if sunlight reflected off the moon dosn't kill them, sunlight reflected from a giant space mirror probablly wouldn't either.

basically, Sunlight only stops working past the Oort cloud, or if it bounces off a celestial body before hitting you.

Again, and I am sorry, but this is just as arbitrary as anything anyone else has said and given the distance I have already mentioned just doesn't make any sense.

again, do you truely not understand, or merely disagree? So far all i'm hearing is "No, I disagree" which...is not really a convincing counter-argument.

The other argument that "Once you are far enough away from the sun that it looks like any other star, it stops hurting vampires" is also a postulate, but I'm not inclined to agree with it, by the following logic:

A: the game says that sunlight harms and destroys vampires. there is no real wiggle room on this.
B: Pluto is a dwarf-planet of the sun, and is exposed to light from the sun
therefore, the conclusion
C: Sunlight harms vampires on pluto

That's what the rules say happen. All my postulates are merely attempts to logically explain this rule and how it might work.

[Nightmask]

Err, I'm not certain how you determine that half a billion miles is the cutoff point. it may be a tiny dot in the sky, but it is still the sun and thus still going to fry you. It's not like intensity-brightness of the sun light is ever listed as a relevant factor, merely that it be the sun's true light.

Distance would have to be a factor, if not then vamps could not come out at night with all the stars in the sky or the reflection of sunlight from a full moon. Distance is a factor, the question is how far and there is no specific answer listed for that.

Starlight are distant stars, not your planets sun, therefor they fail the mystic "Sunlight" requirement.

Likewise, light reflected from the moon is mystically considered "moonlight"--intensity has nothing to do with it.

Essentially, if you are being hit by light from your sun, defined as "are you within that systems Oort cloud"--then it effects you regardless of distance. if it is being reflected by the moon/another astrological body, then it dosn't. I would presume giant space mirrors for fighting vamps would be likewise ineffective.

Not seeing how you can make that claim, a sun is a sun and if the light is considered to be mystically damaging no matter how weak then you can't claim that the light from the Centauri system doesn't do damage because 'well it's not really sunlight it's starlight'. Sol is a star, the light from it is starlight, it's arbitrary semantic quibbling to try and claim that the sun closest to you is giving off sunlight but not any other star until you're within its star system. Plus not all suns have orbital bodies (rare though it is) so then if it hasn't an Oort cloud does that mean it does no damage then or does it mean that it does damage across the universe?

I'm making that claim because it's far more internally consistant than claiming that a vampire on pluto would somehow be immune to a suns rays just because the sun's rays are really far. it's STILL plutos sun, so it still frys them. this should not be such a conterversial statement as it's exactly what the rules state would happen.

You'll have to point to where the rules say vampires are burned by sunlight on Pluto let alone just as much as if they were on Earth on a cloudless day, because unless they placed such material in the revised Vampire Kingdoms nothing says that they're vulnerable out there. It also has nothing to do with it just being so far but because the light is just too weak to be effective, just as Globe of Daylight is able to hold vampires at bay but not quite so strong as to actually damage them.

as for not having an Oort could, that wouldn't really matter. it's not like i'm claiming the debree itself stops it, rather that that is the point beyond which you are no longer considered to be in a stars system, thus the point when it stops being a "sun" and becomes a "Star". the Oort cloud is merely the outer edge of it's gravity well, even a star with nothing orbiting it would still have a limit to it's gravity well equivlen to where an Oort cloud would be. It's not the Oort cloud itself, it's that all it is is where the outer limit of it's gravatational pull. all stars have a limit where their Oort cloud would be even if they don't actually have an Oort cloud, so if it makes you feel better, then amend my statement to be "A sun only stops damaging a vampire once that vampire is completely beyond it's gravity well and not before".

You're setting an arbitrary limit on the effectiveness of sunlight based on distance, one not in the books, and one that simply doesn't have any actual support for it. Sunlight is sunlight, there's nothing that says it would lose its mystical properties after traveling X distance so by your argument that it's arbitrarily effective so that whether on Mercury or Pluto it will deal the same exact damage then because all suns damage vampires and there is no listed range limit given then starlight would be damaging to vampires because it's still sunlight.

As for sunlight not being starlight, it's not semetics, it is litterally what the game is telling me. The vampires have a mystic weakness to sunlight, not starlight. the fact that science tells you that the sun is just a regular star dosn't really matter, because the fact that it's a star is irrelevent. that's important that this star is your sun, and it's the act of being your sun that makes it damage vampires.

I have no idea how you manage to come to that conclusion or why you think the game says anything of the sort. The fact the sun is a star is certainly relevant, because all stars are suns there's simply no way to try and claim a star isn't a sun because they're the same. Sunlight is damaging for mystical reasons for why other light including reflected light isn't a problem, it's also quite logical to arrive at the conclusion that more intense sunlight is more damaging because it's more mystically charged and by extension after it's faded enough it simply lacks sufficient magical damage potential to matter (vampire regeneration being what it is after a point it can easily heal faster than the weak sunlight can damage). Which more reasonably explains why sunlight from distant stars isn't damaging, it actually is but the damage is too trivial to notice.

your explination of "sunlight just stops working once you get too far" makes no sense with the rules we are given. if it's still sunlight, it still works. that's what the rules say, and nothing you've said so far convinces me they say otherwise.

Given that nowhere in the books does it say 'sunlight stops being sunlight at the Oort cloud' your statement that it does carries at best no more justification or sense than it loses effectiveness based on distance and peters out by the time you reach say Mars or Jupiter.

[Nightmask]

Just to add to the complications, what about binary and trinary star systems? After all the Algol (also known as Beta Persei 3 ) star system happens to have 3 tightly orbiting stars (a blue-white, a sub-giant orange-red, and another blue-white) locked together so that a planet orbiting its habitable area is frequently being exposed to light from all three suns. So would a vampire take extra damage based on the extra number of stars in the sky or the same amount as if there were just one?

[Nekira Sudacne]

I have no idea how you manage to come to that conclusion or why you think the game says anything of the sort. The fact the sun is a star is certainly relevant, because all stars are suns there's simply no way to try and claim a star isn't a sun because they're the same. Sunlight is damaging for mystical reasons for why other light including reflected light isn't a problem, it's also quite logical to arrive at the conclusion that more intense sunlight is more damaging because it's more mystically charged and by extension after it's faded enough it simply lacks sufficient magical damage potential to matter (vampire regeneration being what it is after a point it can easily heal faster than the weak sunlight can damage). Which more reasonably explains why sunlight from distant stars isn't damaging, it actually is but the damage is too trivial to notice.

Copied and pasted from my replies to Warshield in case Nightmask missed them:

My previous postulates. Okay. I think I might need to explain the difference between an assumption and a posthulate, as this thread is getting them confused. I have outlined a series of postulates, and then based my assumptions on them.

A postulate is, yes, an assumtion you presume to be true due to observed evidence, and that you are comftable enough in to base further speclation on the foundation of it being true. All a scientific "law" is, is based on a series of postulates. I will grant that my postulates are on shakier ground than, say, the second law of thermodynamics, and again, if you can point me to a book and page number that disproves it, I will gladly change my tune.

My declaration that a sun is defined as whatever star system that a vampire is in the gravity well of works on the vampire is a postulate. I hold it to be true given the evidence and rules the books have presented me with. if you disagree with everything i've given to justify it so far, then you might as well stop debating me, because if it's not true, then every other argument and assumption I make falls apart.

My assumption that moonlight reflected off celestial bodies is another postulate, because clearly moonlight demonstrably does not harm vampires.

given those two posthulates, and assuming you will, for the sake of argument hold them to be true, then how I come to the "Space mirrors wouldn't work either" should be clear. if sunlight reflected off the moon dosn't kill them, sunlight reflected from a giant space mirror probablly wouldn't either.

do you truely not understand, or merely disagree? So far all i'm hearing is "No, I disagree" which...is not really a convincing counter-argument.

The other argument that "Once you are far enough away from the sun that it looks like any other star, it stops hurting vampires" is also a postulate, but I'm not inclined to agree with it, by the following logic:

A: the game says that sunlight harms and destroys vampires. there is no real wiggle room on this.
B: Pluto is a dwarf-planet of the sun, and is exposed to light from the sun
therefore, the conclusion
C: Sunlight harms vampires on pluto

That's what the rules say happen. All my postulates are merely attempts to logically explain this rule and how it might work. You say the rules don't explictly say sunlight harms vampirs on pluto, but this is frankly completely unsupported on your part. sunlight harms vampires, sunlight hits pluto. it dosn't need to say "and therefor sunlight harms vampirs on pluto". it's explict given the fact it is, indeed, sunlight.

[arouetta]

I guess what it comes down to is, pseudo-scientifically speaking (pseudo because this is just a game), what is it about sunlight that hurts a vampire? What particular part of the radiation spectrum is hurting them?

Then you have to figure out saturation point, because even during the night vampires will be exposed to all that same radiation to a lesser extent. So a little is fine, a lot is not. What is that saturation point?

Answer questions one and two, and you can find a point in space where a vampire will be just fine.

Personally, I think outside the Oort Cloud is a little silly as that is like halfway to the nearest star. Does a vampire get baked no matter which way he's facing at that point?

[Nightmask]

I have no idea how you manage to come to that conclusion or why you think the game says anything of the sort. The fact the sun is a star is certainly relevant, because all stars are suns there's simply no way to try and claim a star isn't a sun because they're the same. Sunlight is damaging for mystical reasons for why other light including reflected light isn't a problem, it's also quite logical to arrive at the conclusion that more intense sunlight is more damaging because it's more mystically charged and by extension after it's faded enough it simply lacks sufficient magical damage potential to matter (vampire regeneration being what it is after a point it can easily heal faster than the weak sunlight can damage). Which more reasonably explains why sunlight from distant stars isn't damaging, it actually is but the damage is too trivial to notice.

Copied and pasted from my replies to Warshield in case Nightmask missed them:

My previous postulates. Okay. I think I might need to explain the difference between an assumption and a posthulate, as this thread is getting them confused. I have outlined a series of postulates, and then based my assumptions on them.

A postulate is, yes, an assumtion you presume to be true due to observed evidence, and that you are comftable enough in to base further speclation on the foundation of it being true. All a scientific "law" is, is based on a series of postulates. I will grant that my postulates are on shakier ground than, say, the second law of thermodynamics, and again, if you can point me to a book and page number that disproves it, I will gladly change my tune.

My declaration that a sun is defined as whatever star system that a vampire is in the gravity well of works on the vampire is a postulate. I hold it to be true given the evidence and rules the books have presented me with. if you disagree with everything i've given to justify it so far, then you might as well stop debating me, because if it's not true, then every other argument and assumption I make falls apart.

My assumption that moonlight reflected off celestial bodies is another postulate, because clearly moonlight demonstrably does not harm vampires.

given those two posthulates, and assuming you will, for the sake of argument hold them to be true, then how I come to the "Space mirrors wouldn't work either" should be clear. if sunlight reflected off the moon dosn't kill them, sunlight reflected from a giant space mirror probablly wouldn't either.

do you truely not understand, or merely disagree? So far all i'm hearing is "No, I disagree" which...is not really a convincing counter-argument.

The other argument that "Once you are far enough away from the sun that it looks like any other star, it stops hurting vampires" is also a postulate, but I'm not inclined to agree with it, by the following logic:

A: the game says that sunlight harms and destroys vampires. there is no real wiggle room on this.
B: Pluto is a dwarf-planet of the sun, and is exposed to light from the sun
therefore, the conclusion
C: Sunlight harms vampires on pluto

That's what the rules say happen. All my postulates are merely attempts to logically explain this rule and how it might work. You say the rules don't explictly say sunlight harms vampirs on pluto, but this is frankly completely unsupported on your part. sunlight harms vampires, sunlight hits pluto. it dosn't need to say "and therefor sunlight harms vampirs on pluto". it's explict given the fact it is, indeed, sunlight.

I disagree with your postulates, nor C does not follow A and B, as it's quite unsupported on your part that sunlight would harm a vampire on Pluto. It's a fallacy. We know sunlight striking a vampire on Earth is sufficient to harm a vampire there is nothing that says sunlight of any intensity no matter how feeble harms vampires to equal degrees.

Even though we're discussing the mystical properties of sunlight there's no reason to think that greater intensities of sunlight don't also have higher amounts of these damaging energies and therefor inflict greater damage onto vampires and logically inflict less damage the less intense the sunlight is.

So to correct your first statement there:

A ) Sunlight in the intensities received on Earth damages Vampires to X degree.

You lack sufficient evidence to support getting to C from B because A as a rule is not as you've defined it, there is the part that's left off as redundant as it's not something that normally comes into play namely sunlight in the levels as received by Earth (or whatever habitable world in whatever sun system one is using like Palladium Fantasy).

While we do not have more than a single data-point to work with (since we don't have 'vampires take this amount of damage on Mercury' for example to compare to the known damage they take on Earth) making determining how nearness or farness from a sun affects damage it would be contrary to the reason for the weakness (the mystical damage brought about by the purifying nature of sunlight) to think that a vampire could be teleported to the surface of the sun and subjected to the most intense exposure possible to its nemesis and take no more damage than he would on the Earth or kicking back in the near absolute zero of Pluto where the sun can't even be distinguished from the other stars in the sky.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I disagree with your postulates, nor C does not follow A and B, as it's quite unsupported on your part that sunlight would harm a vampire on Pluto. It's a fallacy. We know sunlight striking a vampire on Earth is sufficient to harm a vampire there is nothing that says sunlight of any intensity no matter how feeble harms vampires to equal degrees.

Even though we're discussing the mystical properties of sunlight there's no reason to think that greater intensities of sunlight don't also have higher amounts of these damaging energies and therefor inflict greater damage onto vampires and logically inflict less damage the less intense the sunlight is.
So to correct your first statement there:

A ) Sunlight in the intensities received on Earth damages Vampires to X degree.

You lack sufficient evidence to support getting to C from B because A as a rule is not as you've defined it, there is the part that's left off as redundant as it's not something that normally comes into play namely sunlight in the levels as received by Earth (or whatever habitable world in whatever sun system one is using like Palladium Fantasy).

While we do not have more than a single data-point to work with (since we don't have 'vampires take this amount of damage on Mercury' for example to compare to the known damage they take on Earth) making determining how nearness or farness from a sun affects damage it would be contrary to the reason for the weakness (the mystical damage brought about by the purifying nature of sunlight) to think that a vampire could be teleported to the surface of the sun and subjected to the most intense exposure possible to its nemesis and take no more damage than he would on the Earth or kicking back in the near absolute zero of Pluto where the sun can't even be distinguished from the other stars in the sky.

There is no reason to think intensity of sunlight has any bearing whatsoever on it's potency, that is the foundation of our disagreement, I think, and sense it seems unlikely either of us find the other's arguments convincing enough to change our mind, I think I will simply agree to disagree and bow out of the conversation

[Nightmask]

I disagree with your postulates, nor C does not follow A and B, as it's quite unsupported on your part that sunlight would harm a vampire on Pluto. It's a fallacy. We know sunlight striking a vampire on Earth is sufficient to harm a vampire there is nothing that says sunlight of any intensity no matter how feeble harms vampires to equal degrees.

Even though we're discussing the mystical properties of sunlight there's no reason to think that greater intensities of sunlight don't also have higher amounts of these damaging energies and therefor inflict greater damage onto vampires and logically inflict less damage the less intense the sunlight is.
So to correct your first statement there:

A ) Sunlight in the intensities received on Earth damages Vampires to X degree.

You lack sufficient evidence to support getting to C from B because A as a rule is not as you've defined it, there is the part that's left off as redundant as it's not something that normally comes into play namely sunlight in the levels as received by Earth (or whatever habitable world in whatever sun system one is using like Palladium Fantasy).

While we do not have more than a single data-point to work with (since we don't have 'vampires take this amount of damage on Mercury' for example to compare to the known damage they take on Earth) making determining how nearness or farness from a sun affects damage it would be contrary to the reason for the weakness (the mystical damage brought about by the purifying nature of sunlight) to think that a vampire could be teleported to the surface of the sun and subjected to the most intense exposure possible to its nemesis and take no more damage than he would on the Earth or kicking back in the near absolute zero of Pluto where the sun can't even be distinguished from the other stars in the sky.

There is no reason to think intensity of sunlight has any bearing whatsoever on it's potency, that is the foundation of our disagreement, I think, and sense it seems unlikely either of us find the other's arguments convincing enough to change our mind, I think I will simply agree to disagree and bow out of the conversation

That does seem to be the crux of it, since there's no reason to think intensity is irrelevant particularly given things like running water deal greater damage to vampire in greater quantities and it's the exception when something doesn't consider greater quantities of what it's vulnerable to to be more damaging. The books certainly don't say that intensity is irrelevant (and various ways of magically creating sunlight produce different levels of damage indicating the sunlight is in some fashion of different potencies) so it's a bad assumption from the start to treat that as a given.

[eliakon]

I disagree with your postulates, nor C does not follow A and B, as it's quite unsupported on your part that sunlight would harm a vampire on Pluto. It's a fallacy. We know sunlight striking a vampire on Earth is sufficient to harm a vampire there is nothing that says sunlight of any intensity no matter how feeble harms vampires to equal degrees.

Even though we're discussing the mystical properties of sunlight there's no reason to think that greater intensities of sunlight don't also have higher amounts of these damaging energies and therefor inflict greater damage onto vampires and logically inflict less damage the less intense the sunlight is.
So to correct your first statement there:

A ) Sunlight in the intensities received on Earth damages Vampires to X degree.

You lack sufficient evidence to support getting to C from B because A as a rule is not as you've defined it, there is the part that's left off as redundant as it's not something that normally comes into play namely sunlight in the levels as received by Earth (or whatever habitable world in whatever sun system one is using like Palladium Fantasy).

While we do not have more than a single data-point to work with (since we don't have 'vampires take this amount of damage on Mercury' for example to compare to the known damage they take on Earth) making determining how nearness or farness from a sun affects damage it would be contrary to the reason for the weakness (the mystical damage brought about by the purifying nature of sunlight) to think that a vampire could be teleported to the surface of the sun and subjected to the most intense exposure possible to its nemesis and take no more damage than he would on the Earth or kicking back in the near absolute zero of Pluto where the sun can't even be distinguished from the other stars in the sky.

There is no reason to think intensity of sunlight has any bearing whatsoever on it's potency, that is the foundation of our disagreement, I think, and sense it seems unlikely either of us find the other's arguments convincing enough to change our mind, I think I will simply agree to disagree and bow out of the conversation

That does seem to be the crux of it, since there's no reason to think intensity is irrelevant particularly given things like running water deal greater damage to vampire in greater quantities and it's the exception when something doesn't consider greater quantities of what it's vulnerable to to be more damaging. The books certainly don't say that intensity is irrelevant (and various ways of magically creating sunlight produce different levels of damage indicating the sunlight is in some fashion of different potencies) so it's a bad assumption from the start to treat that as a given.

Actually the water issue would seem to support her argument. There are two damaging weaknesses listed, water and sunlight. One of these has a flat damage (sunlight) and one has damage scaled on quantity (water). Thus it would seem that the intent was that the amount of water was relevant and the amount of sunlight is not relevant. This of course does not settle the issue of where sunlight (harmful) becomes starlight (not harmful). Though I would admit that I like Nekira's view that anything that has the given star as its primary is sunlight and anything that does not have the star as its primary is starlight.

[LostOne]

Actually the water issue would seem to support her argument. There are two damaging weaknesses listed, water and sunlight. One of these has a flat damage (sunlight) and one has damage scaled on quantity (water). Thus it would seem that the intent was that the amount of water was relevant and the amount of sunlight is not relevant. This of course does not settle the issue of where sunlight (harmful) becomes starlight (not harmful). Though I would admit that I like Nekira's view that anything that has the given star as its primary is sunlight and anything that does not have the star as its primary is starlight.

The sunlight damage was written with the assumption that you will be on Earth. It can be assumed that Earth receives roughly the same amount of sunlight at any given time of day because it is always in the Goldilocks zone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_zone ).

Meaning that the author didn't feel the need to give variable damage because if you're using the rules in Vampire Kingdoms, it is assumed you will be on Rifts Earth. However, if you move closer to the sun or farther away and are on the same size rock, the planet will be far hotter or colder because less energy from the sun hits the planet per square inch. If that energy per square inch increases, the vampire would reasonably take more damage. The farther away you move away from the sun, the less damage until they are receiving so little damage their regeneration can keep up and they are effectively not taking damage.

[Nightmask]

I disagree with your postulates, nor C does not follow A and B, as it's quite unsupported on your part that sunlight would harm a vampire on Pluto. It's a fallacy. We know sunlight striking a vampire on Earth is sufficient to harm a vampire there is nothing that says sunlight of any intensity no matter how feeble harms vampires to equal degrees.

Even though we're discussing the mystical properties of sunlight there's no reason to think that greater intensities of sunlight don't also have higher amounts of these damaging energies and therefor inflict greater damage onto vampires and logically inflict less damage the less intense the sunlight is.
So to correct your first statement there:

A ) Sunlight in the intensities received on Earth damages Vampires to X degree.

You lack sufficient evidence to support getting to C from B because A as a rule is not as you've defined it, there is the part that's left off as redundant as it's not something that normally comes into play namely sunlight in the levels as received by Earth (or whatever habitable world in whatever sun system one is using like Palladium Fantasy).

While we do not have more than a single data-point to work with (since we don't have 'vampires take this amount of damage on Mercury' for example to compare to the known damage they take on Earth) making determining how nearness or farness from a sun affects damage it would be contrary to the reason for the weakness (the mystical damage brought about by the purifying nature of sunlight) to think that a vampire could be teleported to the surface of the sun and subjected to the most intense exposure possible to its nemesis and take no more damage than he would on the Earth or kicking back in the near absolute zero of Pluto where the sun can't even be distinguished from the other stars in the sky.

There is no reason to think intensity of sunlight has any bearing whatsoever on it's potency, that is the foundation of our disagreement, I think, and sense it seems unlikely either of us find the other's arguments convincing enough to change our mind, I think I will simply agree to disagree and bow out of the conversation

That does seem to be the crux of it, since there's no reason to think intensity is irrelevant particularly given things like running water deal greater damage to vampire in greater quantities and it's the exception when something doesn't consider greater quantities of what it's vulnerable to to be more damaging. The books certainly don't say that intensity is irrelevant (and various ways of magically creating sunlight produce different levels of damage indicating the sunlight is in some fashion of different potencies) so it's a bad assumption from the start to treat that as a given.

Actually the water issue would seem to support her argument. There are two damaging weaknesses listed, water and sunlight. One of these has a flat damage (sunlight) and one has damage scaled on quantity (water). Thus it would seem that the intent was that the amount of water was relevant and the amount of sunlight is not relevant. This of course does not settle the issue of where sunlight (harmful) becomes starlight (not harmful). Though I would admit that I like Nekira's view that anything that has the given star as its primary is sunlight and anything that does not have the star as its primary is starlight.

Like LostOne points out the water issue doesn't support her argument since under normal circumstances the vampire won't be exposed to varying intensities of sunlight like it can be water, as the levels are fairly uniform across the sunward facing side. You have to leave the planet to get closer to the sun or farther away (like Mercury or Mars) to actually alter the intensities and the assumption is that that's not going to happen so because the writer assumed it was something that would never happen he didn't include information on it. If you move to where the sunlight is a hundred times more intense it should be more deadly to the vampire because like with varying water amounts you're hitting it with far more of what it's harmed by.

As far as starlight and sunlight go, as already noted they're identical and nothing about being a sun your planet isn't currently orbiting makes it stop giving off sunlight, it'd be like trying to argue that the light from two identical lightbulbs is different because one is in another room. Or to put it another way:

A ) Sunlight is the light given off by a sun
B ) Starlight is light from suns outside the solar system.
C ) Therefor Starlight is Sunlight.

[eliakon]

are people Arguing this further because they want to be pedantic, or they don't care that Phaseworld books already answered this issue.

ooohhh? Which book and where? <is always interested in a published answer>

[arouetta]

according to Phaseworld books: Being in the vicinity of starlight (Without being under protective cover) causes 2d6x10 damge to vampires per melee. That's Actually twice as effective as sunlight in Earth.

According to Phaseworld books: being exposed to cosmic rays without protection causes 5d6 Damage to supernatural beings , per melee. So Vacs in space between systems are STILL not safe without protection, not to mention, they'll Freeze in vaccuum if they have fed.

There has to be a range though. Otherwise a vampire would take 2D6x10x..a couple of million from all the stars in the night sky? Do those books (which I do not have) mention a range?

[LostOne]

according to Phaseworld books: Being in the vicinity of starlight (Without being under protective cover) causes 2d6x10 damge to vampires per melee. That's Actually twice as effective as sunlight in Earth.

According to Phaseworld books: being exposed to cosmic rays without protection causes 5d6 Damage to supernatural beings , per melee. So Vacs in space between systems are STILL not safe without protection, not to mention, they'll Freeze in vaccuum if they have fed.

Is this quoting from the spells mentioned previously or is this listed separately?

Because if it's just the spells, then it could be argued that cosmic rays generated from a magical spell has a greater effect, just like magical fire is more effective against some things than plasma from a Coalition weapon, plus that spell doesn't specifically say vampire and vampires are often a class of their own when talking supernaturals and magical creatures due to their unique resistances and vulnerabilities. The other spell with star light specifically says vampires.

[Nightmask]

according to Phaseworld books: Being in the vicinity of starlight (Without being under protective cover) causes 2d6x10 damge to vampires per melee. That's Actually twice as effective as sunlight in Earth.

According to Phaseworld books: being exposed to cosmic rays without protection causes 5d6 Damage to supernatural beings , per melee. So Vacs in space between systems are STILL not safe without protection, not to mention, they'll Freeze in vaccuum if they have fed.

There has to be a range though. Otherwise a vampire would take 2D6x10x..a couple of million from all the stars in the night sky? Do those books (which I do not have) mention a range?

I think you're missing a bit of context, given it says starlight it can be considered that the combined influence of all that light from stars has the cumulative damaging influence of 2d6x10 rather than meaning each individual star's light is doing that level of damage. Of course that still has the problem that in dense star clusters there should be a greater intensity of light and therefor more damage. But the rules can't cover every situation as the game creators can't manage to think of everything everyone playing can possibly consider or attempt so they went with common situations and up to GM to fill in what they left out due to not having space enough to include all those possibilities.

[eliakon]

so far these appear in the spells. the spells however do go in detail to say, that these versions are the same as the real phenomena.
The Rifter article that included space magic, has even higher/more damaging effects for supernatural beings in space. I believe dimensional outbreak has further notes about supernatural critters in space.

The issue with this is that 1) the damage of a spell, is not a good base line for determining what the damage of a natural form of something is. That said, the spell Starlight (lv9) does do 2d6x10 damage....in an area 100'/level! that means if I am 901' away from a ninth level caster I take no damage! That right THERE tells me that this is not 'natural' light and that the damage thus is affected by magic.
Cosmic Ray is just a direct damage spell, it in no way implies that normal cosmic rays do the listed damage, and infact as it does not explicitly say it does special damage to Vampires, it would likely do half damage like other direct damage spells.

This therefore STILL leaves us back at 'do other stars affect them, if so how much' and for THAT (as far as I am aware) there is nothing in canon, other than the brief mention on pg31 of Three Galaxies that the vampires on the Icarus system only face daylight 9 hours a day....which is totally inconclusive.

[Nightmask]

so far these appear in the spells. the spells however do go in detail to say, that these versions are the same as the real phenomena.
The Rifter article that included space magic, has even higher/more damaging effects for supernatural beings in space. I believe dimensional outbreak has further notes about supernatural critters in space.

The issue with this is that 1) the damage of a spell, is not a good base line for determining what the damage of a natural form of something is. That said, the spell Starlight (lv9) does do 2d6x10 damage....in an area 100'/level! that means if I am 901' away from a ninth level caster I take no damage! That right THERE tells me that this is not 'natural' light and that the damage thus is affected by magic.
Cosmic Ray is just a direct damage spell, it in no way implies that normal cosmic rays do the listed damage, and infact as it does not explicitly say it does special damage to Vampires, it would likely do half damage like other direct damage spells.

This therefore STILL leaves us back at 'do other stars affect them, if so how much' and for THAT (as far as I am aware) there is nothing in canon, other than the brief mention on pg31 of Three Galaxies that the vampires on the Icarus system only face daylight 9 hours a day....which is totally inconclusive.

Well if the Starlight damage previously mentioned was by spell (which wasn't made clear earlier) then no, it can't be credited with explaining how much damage normal sunlight in that situation would cause. So given that we see nothing about starlight being damaging normally then the suns are just too far away and their energy too diminished by distance to be of any impact.

[Nightmask]

which is , of course, not how a gm would handle it.

I've no idea where you arrive at the idea that 'of course a GM wouldn't handle it that way', the other suns in the universe either are too far away to do damage or they aren't, given vampires don't get vaporized walking outside at night under a starry sky distant suns are too far away to deal damage.

[arouetta]

that isn't what We're referring to.

But that is exactly what is being referred to. How much distance from a natural star (whether home star or faraway star) is needed before there is no damage to a vampire? Where is the point that there is not enough solar radiation to cause problems?

[Rimmerdal]

that isn't what We're referring to.

But that is exactly what is being referred to. How much distance from a natural star (whether home star or faraway star) is needed before there is no damage to a vampire? Where is the point that there is not enough solar radiation to cause problems?

Purity of said sunlight would be the issue so there should be some sot of limit. Though I'd have a tough time explaining how its the radiation to rules lawyer. But I'm not one so I can look past that and give a range.

As for distance..with in system and sun size would still be a factor of course. Each sun would have a range based on size and type if logic were applied.

Now a thought occured...would a Super Nova in on system cause enough rads to hit another system and if so could that kill vamps?