Forums of the Megaverse®

Would anyone be aware of any? Absolutely no ulterior motives at all behind wanting to know this

The closest I can figure to situations like this are non-explicit ones, where it doesn't concretely state that a being is no longer supernatural, but they aren't reiterated as being supernatural and an impression is given of them powering down and losing abilities so as to convey the impression.

There's the pre-disaster Seljulk > current Seljuk, and Cosmo Knights > Fallen Cosmo-Knights. Fallens and modern Seljuk might be supernatural... but they also might not be, pretty much up in the air.

I'm wondering if anyone recalls any situations that imply a loss of supernatural abilities, basically.

The description of Fallen Guardians in Shadows of Light implies this can happen to evil guardians (although making an evil pact to become a Dark Guardian presumably makes you supernatural once more). I also get the impression that Reapers are supernatural and that if a Mircalla dies, the reapers revert to mundane non-supernatural humans.

Although Universal Balance negates MDC, I don't think it negates being supernatural. I also don't think becoming a borg could do it either (some supies lack the healing to make borging mipossible) since Brodkil are still supies I think... although that's a partial so I dunno what full could do.

There's a blurb in dragons and gods about a god who looses all worshipers sometimes becoming mortal again instead of dying.

Though that implies that it applies only to gods who started mortal.

Full bionic conversion.

mystic china has a "reformed demon" class that lets demons and similar become mortal humans if they do certain things..

actually I can't beleive I forgot. but yes. over the process the Infernal, a being which is a pure chi entity with no body unless they materalize, can become a full, normal human indistingishable from if he was born that way.

I guess they're all particular examples of certain supernatural RCCs and not a generic 'mortalization' process we could use on just anyone though

There is the Circle in the Old Ones Complex that can turn anything into an Elf. Its highly esoteric sure, but it IS a way.

NICE.

Do you think this is repeatable? For example, an elf gets turned into a vampire, uses circle to become an elf again, turns vamp, uses circle again, etc.

Yes, it absolutely can be repeated.

Tor wrote:NICE.

Do you think this is repeatable? For example, an elf gets turned into a vampire, uses circle to become an elf again, turns vamp, uses circle again, etc.

yes, though you lose the powers and abilities of the old race.
so Bob turns into a vampire, and uses the circle. now bob is an Elf. He loses all the vampire powers and abilities. (and the FAQ suggests he rerolls his stats) He then goes out and gets turned into an antimonster, and comes back. he is an elf again, and once again he loses the powers. He does NOT become an elf with invulnerability, psionics, innate magics, and all the other powers of the other stuff.

The loose ALL old powers thing is important. the circle was made by the old ones to turn the great old ones themselves into purely mortal beings with no special powers, so they could enjoy simple pleasures lost to such eldrich beings.

Hm... how did they reverse it though? Maybe the reversion circle is one that hasn't been discovered yet...

This ability to cure vampirism through the circle makes killing vamps all the more immoral.

It also makes me confused about why elves are going extinct. I guess maybe because the circle isn't in regular use. Being all hidden in a temple with a slumbering LOO.

Tor wrote:Hm... how did they reverse it though? Maybe the reversion circle is one that hasn't been discovered yet...

This ability to cure vampirism through the circle makes killing vamps all the more immoral.

It also makes me confused about why elves are going extinct. I guess maybe because the circle isn't in regular use. Being all hidden in a temple with a slumbering LOO.

It requires the blood of an Old One to reverse it.

Oh... so the GOO would either have to store their own blood (since they couldn't make more once they became an elf) or else rely on a buddy.

Makes me wonder... while they're asleep, why not just subject every single GOO to this and then wipe out all remains of OO blood in the Megaverse? Trap them in vulnerable forms.

Unless the Beast has a page number to quote, I think he was just taking a guess, because I read the book with the circle and nothing about using the old ones blood to reverse it is anywhere.

And yes, the reason why it's not in use is because it has been long forgotton, existing only in one particular dungeon infested with monsters and a coven of old one witches.

This same complex also has a power circle that reverses aging, allowing mortals to effectivly live indefinatly.

Also minor note: Killing vampires simply because they are vampires is just silly--I Am Legend highlights this pretty well.

Killing a group of vampires trying to activly kill your town and feast on the blood of your children before killing them is perfectly fine. Nothing says vampires have to do this, but the vampire kingdom book makes it clear it's a common hobby of a large group of them.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Unless the Beast has a page number to quote, I think he was just taking a guess, because I read the book with the circle and nothing about using the old ones blood to reverse it is anywhere.

The circle requires their blood to activate. I don't see why the reverse wouldn't be true.

page 169 "...the change to elf is permanent, because to reverse the process, a drop of an Old One's blood must be placed in the black center of the giant power circle."

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Killing a group of vampires trying to activly kill your town and feast on the blood of your children before killing them is perfectly fine. Nothing says vampires have to do this, but the vampire kingdom book makes it clear it's a common hobby of a large group of them.

The kingdoms show they have potential for more, so I feel like we have an obligation to teach them of that potential. They are overwhelmed by their hunger, and we're the only way to sate it, and they may not expect we'll accept a diplomatic solution so they take what they need!

eliakon wrote:page 169 "...the change to elf is permanent, because to reverse the process, a drop of an Old One's blood must be placed in the black center of the giant power circle."

That doesn't sound permanent to me. Could always cut up that sleeping LOO.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:page 169 "...the change to elf is permanent, because to reverse the process, a drop of an Old One's blood must be placed in the black center of the giant power circle."

That doesn't sound permanent to me. Could always cut up that sleeping LOO.

Its about as permanent as death I guess. Sure it can be reversed, with one unique process. But so can almost anything else. *shrugs* I guess the question becomes "How hard to reverse does something have to be to be considered permanent"

Tor wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Killing a group of vampires trying to activly kill your town and feast on the blood of your children before killing them is perfectly fine. Nothing says vampires have to do this, but the vampire kingdom book makes it clear it's a common hobby of a large group of them.

The kingdoms show they have potential for more, so I feel like we have an obligation to teach them of that potential. They are overwhelmed by their hunger, and we're the only way to sate it, and they may not expect we'll accept a diplomatic solution so they take what they need!

We don't have an obligation to teach people activly attacking us anything. It's nice that some of them want to learn, but they have to be willing to become students before we have an obligation to teach them.

You want to send diplomats to the vampire kingdoms, fine. I'm not negotating with a vampire trying to kill my village though. My obligation to them in the hypothetical ends when they attack myself, my family or my community. what you do with the rest of them wouldn't concern me much.

Note, I am drawing a distinction between a vampire activly plotting to kill me and the kingdoms as a whole.

The Beast wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Unless the Beast has a page number to quote, I think he was just taking a guess, because I read the book with the circle and nothing about using the old ones blood to reverse it is anywhere.

The circle requires their blood to activate. I don't see why the reverse wouldn't be true.

Because it would require another Old One to cooperate?

Nekira Sudacne wrote:We don't have an obligation to teach people activly attacking us anything. It's nice that some of them want to learn, but they have to be willing to become students before we have an obligation to teach them.

They could be willing, deep down. Many vampires who attack have been reduced to an animalistic state by their hunger and can't think clearly, and may regret what they did and be open to swaying, once they get fed. They roll vs insanity, they're literally mentally ill. I would say that much like with animals and the insane, if we can defend ourselves through non-lethal means without compromising our survival chances then it should be done.

Unlike jailing prisoners, vampires can easily be kept in stasis indefinitely by staking them, and during that time I don't think they go insane with hunger like they normally would if you kept them chained up in a basement. So you could store the vampires long-term while you built up your resources to be able to deliver an adequate blood supply to them, at which point they can be awoken and kept sated during negotiation processes.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:I'm not negotating with a vampire trying to kill my village though. My obligation to them in the hypothetical ends when they attack myself, my family or my community.

Basically all I'm saying is "stake and bury" rather than "stake and leave in sun / toss in river".

Nekira Sudacne wrote:drawing a distinction between a vampire activly plotting to kill me and the kingdoms as a whole.

But then we have vampires actively trying to kill us who aren't really 'plotting', just going on an insane feeding frenzy. This isn't the suave Master who is well-fed and killing for the fun of it, definitely agree those guys don't deserve much compassion. I'm sure the Vkingdom rulers would agree, they don't like food friends being wasted.

Tor wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:We don't have an obligation to teach people activly attacking us anything. It's nice that some of them want to learn, but they have to be willing to become students before we have an obligation to teach them.

They could be willing, deep down. Many vampires who attack have been reduced to an animalistic state by their hunger and can't think clearly, and may regret what they did and be open to swaying, once they get fed. They roll vs insanity, they're literally mentally ill. I would say that much like with animals and the insane, if we can defend ourselves through non-lethal means without compromising our survival chances then it should be done.

Unlike jailing prisoners, vampires can easily be kept in stasis indefinitely by staking them, and during that time I don't think they go insane with hunger like they normally would if you kept them chained up in a basement. So you could store the vampires long-term while you built up your resources to be able to deliver an adequate blood supply to them, at which point they can be awoken and kept sated during negotiation processes.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:I'm not negotating with a vampire trying to kill my village though. My obligation to them in the hypothetical ends when they attack myself, my family or my community.

Basically all I'm saying is "stake and bury" rather than "stake and leave in sun / toss in river".

Nekira Sudacne wrote:drawing a distinction between a vampire activly plotting to kill me and the kingdoms as a whole.

But then we have vampires actively trying to kill us who aren't really 'plotting', just going on an insane feeding frenzy. This isn't the suave Master who is well-fed and killing for the fun of it, definitely agree those guys don't deserve much compassion. I'm sure the Vkingdom rulers would agree, they don't like food friends being wasted.

As fascinating as a discussion about relative morality and undeath is.....It has nothing to do with supernatural strength vis-à-vis AR.....if it needs to be discussed, lets make another thread rather than hijacking this one.

eliakon wrote:a discussion about relative morality and undeath nothing to do with supernatural strength vis-à-vis AR.....if it needs to be discussed, lets make another thread rather than hijacking this one.

Uh... sure you're not thinking of this thread bro?

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:a discussion about relative morality and undeath nothing to do with supernatural strength vis-à-vis AR.....if it needs to be discussed, lets make another thread rather than hijacking this one.

Uh... sure you're not thinking of this thread bro?

Yes, my mistake, I had too many windows open. *bows head in shame*. I still don't see what a discussion about relative morality and undeath have to do with turning supernatural beings non-supernatural. Either way its still a thread hijack.

I'm hijacking my own thread? I am utterly okay with this thread evolution. Sometimes you begin with mechanics and deter into morality. People are still free to mention means of de-supernaturalizing things.

Tor wrote:The kingdoms show they have potential for more, so I feel like we have an obligation to teach them of that potential. They are overwhelmed by their hunger, and we're the only way to sate it, and they may not expect we'll accept a diplomatic solution so they take what they need!

There is an apparent misunderstanding about how Palladium Vampires work.

They don't engage in cruelty because of their hunger, they engage in cruelty in addition to their hunger because an undefined something in their creation process makes them take delight in actively causing the suffering of others.

Palladium Vampires, with few exceptions (beings such as the Deluded and Heroic varieties of vampire) aren't entirely unlike the Demons of Hades in that regard -which makes one wonder if it is possible that the same somebodies who purportedly created the evil-loving Demons and Deevils didn't also have a hand in the creation of the Vampire Intelligences themselves long ago.

Where is it discussed that all vampires inherently take delight in causing suffering to others? I don't recall coming across discussion of inherent sadistic tendencies.

Psychologically I could see this as something that tends to happen more than in humans (many would throw aside empathy to live with what they are, and become bored over the centuries, seeking stranger avenues of entertainment) but while they have category-based alignment restrictions, the prevention of 'higher goodness' does not a sadist make. The only Diabolic-only vampires out there are Intelligences, their Familiars, and the Astral ones in Between the Shadows. All others, even the evil-only Masters/Strigoi, are allowed Miscreant/Aberrent.

If any alignment mandated sadism, it would be Diabolic, and even then I'm not even sure if it's mandatory. I can't see how it would be for Miscreant or Aberrent, and even less so for the anarchist wilds, unprincipled secondaries or scrupulous Wampyres. Not to mention the 'even more good' variants introduced in Revised Vampire Kingdoms.

Usually if we say 'vampire' we're talking about the mortals converted into them, not the intelligences or astral variants...

Tor wrote:Where is it discussed that all vampires inherently take delight in causing suffering to others? I don't recall coming across discussion of inherent sadistic tendencies.

"Undead Vampires live to dominate, terrify, and feed on inferior humanoid life......playthings to satisfy sadistic pleasures. The hellish things delight in the fear, pain and suffering of their prey, immersing themselves in their emotions...."

Rifts: Vampire Kingdoms (1st Edition), page 8.


(Note: nothing in this passage is contradicted by the revised version of this book, which in large part consists of the 'unofficial,' biased views of Doc Reed anyway -as opposed to the official, 'God's eye view' knowledge of the Authors.)

Are you reading this as meaning 'all' undead vampires? I get the impression it means 'some'. To think it would apply as a blanket policy would conflict with NPCs who aren't like this.

Tor wrote:Are you reading this as meaning 'all' undead vampires? I get the impression it means 'some'. To think it would apply as a blanket policy would conflict with NPCs who aren't like this.

Exceptions to a rule do not disprove a rule though, just prove that there are exceptions to it. So with out qualifiers, it would suggest that this statement would describe the 'average' or 'normal' vampire.

Tor wrote:Would anyone be aware of any? Absolutely no ulterior motives at all behind wanting to know this

The closest I can figure to situations like this are non-explicit ones, where it doesn't concretely state that a being is no longer supernatural, but they aren't reiterated as being supernatural and an impression is given of them powering down and losing abilities so as to convey the impression.

There's the pre-disaster Seljulk > current Seljuk, and Cosmo Knights > Fallen Cosmo-Knights. Fallens and modern Seljuk might be supernatural... but they also might not be, pretty much up in the air.

I'm wondering if anyone recalls any situations that imply a loss of supernatural abilities, basically.

The description of Fallen Guardians in Shadows of Light implies this can happen to evil guardians (although making an evil pact to become a Dark Guardian presumably makes you supernatural once more). I also get the impression that Reapers are supernatural and that if a Mircalla dies, the reapers revert to mundane non-supernatural humans.

Although Universal Balance negates MDC, I don't think it negates being supernatural. I also don't think becoming a borg could do it either (some supies lack the healing to make borging mipossible) since Brodkil are still supies I think... although that's a partial so I dunno what full could do.

You want the spell 'Only Human' from Rifter #18.

Mal

eliakon wrote:Exceptions to a rule do not disprove a rule though, just prove that there are exceptions to it.

You're calling this a 'rule', but it isn't worded like a rule. It's simply describing that diabolical sadistic vampires exist.

eliakon wrote:with out qualifiers, it would suggest that this statement would describe the 'average' or 'normal' vampire.

I would agree it would probably describe astral/strigoi/master and possibly Wilds pretty well, but I question whether or not it would be descriptive of secondaries.

If it did, I'd say it would moreso be a longterm process that tends to occur to secondaries as their outlook changes over decades of living with the hunger and coming to terms with their alienation from humanity.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Exceptions to a rule do not disprove a rule though, just prove that there are exceptions to it.

You're calling this a 'rule', but it isn't worded like a rule. It's simply describing that diabolical sadistic vampires exist.

eliakon wrote:with out qualifiers, it would suggest that this statement would describe the 'average' or 'normal' vampire.

I would agree it would probably describe astral/strigoi/master and possibly Wilds pretty well, but I question whether or not it would be descriptive of secondaries.

If it did, I'd say it would moreso be a longterm process that tends to occur to secondaries as their outlook changes over decades of living with the hunger and coming to terms with their alienation from humanity.

So what your saying is that you don't like how the book is written, and wish to revise the written material so that it meets your views on what is appropriate. *shrugs* Go right ahead, that's your right, you can make a house rule/rewrite on anything for your games. But the official Palladium vampire is sadistic and cruel. It doesn't say that it takes time, so the presumption there is that it just happens. Which could have several reasons. It could be a manifestation of the transformation process (the chemical hypothesis), it could be that the original person is dead and replaced by something else (the Doc Ried hypothesis), it could be because Tacos (the Because the Book Said So hypothesis). It is hard to figure out exactly since the sources of non-speculative information on vampires are limited.

I'm not revising anything. I'm pointing out to you that the statement is simply describing some vampires and not all.

If someone wrote "wolfen murder humans and eat them" this would not mean ALL wolfen do that, or even that most do it, simply that some do.

For you to interpret this as an inherent tendency of the majority is the house rule here, because the wording is NOT that explicit.

Tor wrote:I'm not revising anything. I'm pointing out to you that the statement is simply describing some vampires and not all.

If someone wrote "wolfen murder humans and eat them" this would not mean ALL wolfen do that, or even that most do it, simply that some do.

For you to interpret this as an inherent tendency of the majority is the house rule here, because the wording is NOT that explicit.

There is virtually NO statement about a group of beings which locks ALL of those beings into the exact same set of behaviors.......HOWEVER, it can be argued that most reasonable people who look at such a statement -in this case, a statement of character -would assume that MOST of the beings that the statement refers to, DO fall within the 'parameters' of that statement of generalization.

Various generalizing statements from around the Palladium Megaverse:

• (Paraphrased) "....Alien Intelligences know nothing of love or compassion, and exist only to inflict pain, sorrow and despair on other living things..."
• (Paraphrased) "Faerie Folk like to spend their days playing in the woods and forests, eating and drinking food (they especially love sweets), and are leery of Big Folk."
• (Paraphrased) "Undead are vulnerable to silver; weapons made of this substance inflict MDC damage to the creatures as SDC and Hit Point damage."
• (paraphrased) Mystic Knights are the antithesis of all that is good and noble."
• (Paraphrased) "The Noro have a high regard for sentient life."
• (Paraphrased) "Wolfen value individual honor and courage in combat above all else. They are also extremely protective of their families."
• (Paraphrased) "Orcs believe that 'might makes right' and as such, will follow anyone who is more powerful than they."
• (paraphrased) "The appearance of an Alien Intelligence is that of a mound of rotting flesh with tentacles and multiple eyes..."
• "Undead Vampires live to dominate, terrify, and feed on inferior humanoid life......playthings to satisfy sadistic pleasures. The hellish things delight in the fear, pain and suffering of their prey, immersing themselves in their emotions...."

A so-called Generalizing Statement doesn't mean "Only the ones that you are explicitly told that that Generalizing Statement applies to."
A so-called Generalizing Statement doesn't mean "A few but not most."
A so-called Generalizing Statement doesn't mean "All of them without exception."

A so-called Generalizing Statement does mean "Most if not all of the individuals who belong to that group" -some Alien Intelligences are energy spheres in their natural form, some Faerie Folk are not only dour in attitude but downright murderous, some Mystic Knights belong to the heroic Order Of The Rose, some Vampires are heroic Champions Of Light, and so on, and so on.

NOTE: The various (paraphrased) statements up there should quickly make one realize that I am away from my books and can't get word-for-word quotes at this time.

Tor wrote:I'm not revising anything. I'm pointing out to you that the statement is simply describing some vampires and not all.

If someone wrote "wolfen murder humans and eat them" this would not mean ALL wolfen do that, or even that most do it, simply that some do.

For you to interpret this as an inherent tendency of the majority is the house rule here, because the wording is NOT that explicit.

The 'gods eye canon' statement was that they were a certain way. If the gods eye, canon statement was that wolfen murder humans and eat them, then it would mean that the average wolfen would do so. The reason is that the source is not an ingame person who may or may not be falliable, but it is the Author speaking from the point of view of the rules. The statement is not qualified in anyway, thus choosing to retroactively add qualifiers is changing what is written. You don't have to like what is there, but the point is that it IS there. With out qualifiers a general statement means just that...its general. It describes the class of objects, in this case vampires. It doesn't have to describe all of them, just the general class of object. Thus if you select a vampire at random it is probably going to act the way the description describes it. It doesn't HAVE to, since the description doesn't have a rigid lock like 'all vampires with out exception' or 'all vampires'. But it doesn't have a limiter either (some vampires, elder vampires, vampires that have lost their humanity).

cornholioprime wrote:There is virtually NO statement about a group of beings which locks ALL of those beings into the exact same set of behaviors.......HOWEVER, it can be argued that most reasonable people who look at such a statement -in this case, a statement of character -would assume that MOST of the beings that the statement refers to, DO fall within the 'parameters' of that statement of generalization.

I can readily agree that with anarchist alignment being the best possible, that Wild vampires would may average out around Miscreant (and thus evil) and with Masters all being evil, even if Secondaries averaged out at anarchist that could still be enough to tip the balance in favour of an evil average. There's no knowing for sure though, since we never got percentages, just a cutoff.

I don't concur that most reasonable people such a statement would assume that such a statement describes a majority. I instead weigh that it could merely represent a significant above-human-average portion, perhaps near-majority.

Various generalizing statements from around the Palladium Megaverse:

cornholioprime wrote:

• (Paraphrased) "....Alien Intelligences know nothing of love or compassion, and exist only to inflict pain, sorrow and despair on other living things..."
• (Paraphrased) "Faerie Folk like to spend their days playing in the woods and forests, eating and drinking food (they especially love sweets), and are leery of Big Folk."
• (Paraphrased) "Undead are vulnerable to silver; weapons made of this substance inflict MDC damage to the creatures as SDC and Hit Point damage."
• (paraphrased) Mystic Knights are the antithesis of all that is good and noble."
• (Paraphrased) "The Noro have a high regard for sentient life."
• (Paraphrased) "Wolfen value individual honor and courage in combat above all else. They are also extremely protective of their families."
• (Paraphrased) "Orcs believe that 'might makes right' and as such, will follow anyone who is more powerful than they."
• (paraphrased) "The appearance of an Alien Intelligence is that of a mound of rotting flesh with tentacles and multiple eyes..."
  

All good examples of attributes possessed by species in high enough frequency to be noteable and stereotype-creating, but that can occur without it reaching majority status.

cornholioprime wrote:

"Undead Vampires live to dominate, terrify, and feed on inferior humanoid life......playthings to satisfy sadistic pleasures. The hellish things delight in the fear, pain and suffering of their prey, immersing themselves in their emotions...."

A so-called Generalizing Statement doesn't mean "Only the ones that you are explicitly told that that Generalizing Statement applies to."
A so-called Generalizing Statement doesn't mean "A few but not most."
A so-called Generalizing Statement doesn't mean "All of them without exception."

A so-called Generalizing Statement does mean "Most if not all of the individuals who belong to that group"

I would instead pick a middle ground between 'few' and 'most', that being 'many'. 45% for example would be too much to be few, but not most, yet enough to create bad impressions and seem excessive compared to human inclination.

eliakon wrote:The 'gods eye canon' statement was that they were a certain way.

What we're discussing is who exactly it was pertaining to. It's worded similarly to the examples cornholio has given and we're having a many vs most dispute (as I don't think anyone is arguing for the extreme viewpoints of few/all).

eliakon wrote:If the gods eye, canon statement was that wolfen murder humans and eat them, then it would mean that the average wolfen would do so.

I don't agree, I only take that to mean more than 1 (some) and probably many, maybe most, but literally speaking we need more than plurality to denote majority.

eliakon wrote:The reason is that the source is not an ingame person who may or may not be falliable, but it is the Author speaking from the point of view of the rules.

While I agree about the context, the terms used lack the explicitness to pinpoint them as a large number even though it could be assumed.

eliakon wrote:The statement is not qualified in anyway, thus choosing to retroactively add qualifiers is changing what is written.

To say it applies to majority because it says "vampires" is adding a qualifier. All we really know from this is that at least 2 vampires are this way. Obviously more than that is meant, but there's no way to resolve whether few/many/most/all is meant, all we know is that some are.

eliakon wrote:With out qualifiers a general statement means just that...its general.

Does it say 'in general' (implying a mode) or is it simply pluralized?

eliakon wrote:it doesn't have a limiter either (some vampires, elder vampires, vampires that have lost their humanity).

I'm merely hypothesizing what leads them to have such inclinations besides the whole 'evil essence' thing. A limiter isn't actually needed since and explicit includer is absent.