Forums of the Megaverse®

Howdy folks. I've been gone for a while and had a Palladium Vampire dispute at work. I don't need house rules here, I need Palladium by the book answers. Here are the scenarios we have going right now.

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

Would throwing a vampire into the sun kill it?

Would throwing a vampire into a black hole kill it?

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

Thanks

Fusion block would only anger it.

The sun would kill it.

A black hole would trap it.

Nope.

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

Thanks

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

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

Thanks

since all the others have been answered, let me give a go at this one. No. The only way to kill a vampire, forever are the ways listed in the vampire kingdom books and the few passing abilities that come out and say they can end a vamp forever in other supplements. If it ain't silver, wood, sunlight, running water or stake/decapitation/burn head and body. It ain't permanent, in short

considering black holes swallow light .......i would say black holes might kill a vamp. maybe? lol

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

Nope. It'll incapacitate the vamp temporarily (by rending its body in to many tiny pieces), but it'll reform and come back soon enough.

Would throwing a vampire into the sun kill it?

Yes. It's the sun.

Would throwing a vampire into a black hole kill it?

No, but it might trap it for all time.

The important thing with all these "solutions" is to remember the magical abilities of vampires. Strap a block to its head, and it may just turn in to mist. Trap it in a black hole, and it may just teleport out, as that doesn't require movement that would be constrained by gravity.

Lets hope there aren't any Vampires listening in...

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:
since all the others have been answered, let me give a go at this one. No. The only way to kill a vampire, forever are the ways listed in the vampire kingdom books and the few passing abilities that come out and say they can end a vamp forever in other supplements. If it ain't silver, wood, sunlight, running water or stake/decapitation/burn head and body. It ain't permanent, in short

I've always thought it kind of 'in the box' thinking to assume Vampire kingdoms is comprehensive. Especially since it doesn't exactly say what it is that makes silver/wood etc that is special. I'm just imagining the great Atlantean library on the entries about killing their great foe, The Vampire. And all the knowledge of this ancient race distilling down to about 14 pages.

For example, lets say you develop a spell 'reverse vampirism'... cast it, then simply kill the guy normally. Almost nothing is said in the book on reversal, but if you could, this would be a way to kill 'em.

Vamps need supernatural energies, right? There must be some mojo keeping them undead, could that be stopped?

Then there's the bambi vs godzilla aspect of it. Thor's hammer can't put down a vamp for good, but a squirt gun can. That seems to be taking things a bit far. Similar with Black holes. It can destroy a planet, but can't kill a vampire? Exactly how powerful are vampires supposed to be? One could argue that the reason that 'black holes' aren't on the list is that black holes were the last thing on the writer's mind when he wrote about the vamps. How stupid would it have been to read in VK

"Weaknesses, Wood, Silver, running water, and black holes"

I'm pretty sure the balck hole gets the gob done. A crushing weight of eternal blackness so great not even molecules remain intact. infact our vampire will be recycled into the universe as radiation, which is the only thing to escape.

Other Permanent Deaths

-Vampire Bone Spear
-Crimson Wall of Licatalon
-Soul Drinkers????
-Mind Wipe, as mentioned earlier

Wangfucius wrote:wasn't there some bio magic spell in SA1 that did mad damage to vamps?

totally, bioblast negated their undead energies, or something like that, 1d6x10 dmg. only masters can save for half dmg. also, nuclear blasts are always take peice by peice. no, nuclear light wont kill a vamp. no, heat wont kill a vamp. no, radiation wont kill a vamp. but a blast that can destroy a city as big as hiroshima, will. hands down, no ifs, ands, or buts. and once again i must mention that phase weapons will nerf em too. it says so in the book. cosmic blast and cosmoknight hth attacks will kill them. there was a forum discussion on it. the writer stepped in and said they would. look it up if you dont believe me.so will uranium rounds for guns and the spell dessicate the supernatural. apparently there was also a discussion here about magic and psionics fragging vamps. k. siemba apparently stepped in and said at -40 hp they pushed up dasies from magic and psionics. might have been different writer tho.

Now for the astronomical power gamers out there...

Moonlight is nothing but reflected sunlight, but evidently it's not intense enough to harm a vampire....

<There is already a big bunch wrong with that theory, but it appeals to me>...

So, moonlight and a magnifying glass to intensify it and voila! Vampire killing power under romantic moonlight.

MEANWHILE

So, The Sun is just a star, how does starlight work? This may be important from the perspective of vamps in space. Does it have to be a yellow star? Is there something special about our sun? These questions would need to be answered to truly understand the phenomena of the sci-fi vacuum vamps.

DamonS wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:
since all the others have been answered, let me give a go at this one. No. The only way to kill a vampire, forever are the ways listed in the vampire kingdom books and the few passing abilities that come out and say they can end a vamp forever in other supplements. If it ain't silver, wood, sunlight, running water or stake/decapitation/burn head and body. It ain't permanent, in short

I've always thought it kind of 'in the box' thinking to assume Vampire kingdoms is comprehensive. Especially since it doesn't exactly say what it is that makes silver/wood etc that is special. I'm just imagining the great Atlantean library on the entries about killing their great foe, The Vampire. And all the knowledge of this ancient race distilling down to about 14 pages.

What makes silver/wood/etc. special is that vampires are magically vulnerable to them.
That's it.

For example, lets say you develop a spell 'reverse vampirism'... cast it, then simply kill the guy normally. Almost nothing is said in the book on reversal, but if you could, this would be a way to kill 'em.

Essentially, you're saying, "IF other ways existed to kill vampires, THEN wouldn't there be other ways to kill vampires?"

The answer is Yes, but it's not that important of an answer.

Vamps need supernatural energies, right? There must be some mojo keeping them undead, could that be stopped?

They need blood.
That's really it, as far as I recall.

Then there's the bambi vs godzilla aspect of it. Thor's hammer can't put down a vamp for good, but a squirt gun can. That seems to be taking things a bit far.

Well, Thor wasn't much of a vampire slayer.
But I can agree with you to a point. Any chosen weapon of a Sun God/Goddess should be able to put down a vampire for good.

Similar with Black holes. It can destroy a planet, but can't kill a vampire? Exactly how powerful are vampires supposed to be? One could argue that the reason that 'black holes' aren't on the list is that black holes were the last thing on the writer's mind when he wrote about the vamps. How stupid would it have been to read in VK

"Weaknesses, Wood, Silver, running water, and black holes"

Possibly, but I take the book as it's written.
Black holes cannot kill vampires.

Still, a vampire stuck in a black hole is as good as dead.

DamonS wrote:Now for the astronomical power gamers out there...

Moonlight is nothing but reflected sunlight, but evidently it's not intense enough to harm a vampire....

<There is already a big bunch wrong with that theory, but it appeals to me>...

So, moonlight and a magnifying glass to intensify it and voila! Vampire killing power under romantic moonlight.

MEANWHILE

So, The Sun is just a star, how does starlight work? This may be important from the perspective of vamps in space. Does it have to be a yellow star? Is there something special about our sun? These questions would need to be answered to truly understand the phenomena of the sci-fi vacuum vamps.

You're coming at this from a perspective of physics, but this is about magic.
Moonlight is physically the same as sunlight.
But it's not magically the same.

J. Lionheart wrote:

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

Nope. It'll incapacitate the vamp temporarily (by rending its body in to many tiny pieces), but it'll reform and come back soon enough.

Even that wouldn't happen - the fusion block would just have no effect, other than the explosive force causing serious knockdown - the vampire's body would be unharmed. If the fusion block was silver plated or contained in a wooden box then it could scatter the vamp's body as the silver/wood fragments tore through it (only to regenerate back).

There are two other options:

If reduced to 0 HP by the Lifeblast spell will also kill it.



And let us not forget: Killing the Vampire Intelligence which spawned him will also do the job

Killer Cyborg wrote:
They need blood.
That's really it, as far as I recall.

Nope, they need magic too. There is no process to turn blood into a near-immortal regerating killing machine without some magic, or some of whatever it is that makes them 'supernatural'. Without 'supernaturalness', you can't have vampires... It's an unusual way to think about it, but a valid one. The supernaturalness makes them hit harder, regenerate (they don't need blood to do that), and all sorts of things.

It's implied that there is a link to the vampire intelligence, which is why killing the intelligence kills the vamp. The Intelligence is the source of this 'supernaturalness'. If there is a link.... then in theory, severing the link will kill the vamp. But the books, again, don't spend much time discussing the link one way or another. That's for the GM to decide.

Sounds to me like an enterprising shifter developing a 'sever link' spell would be quite effective.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Possibly, but I take the book as it's written.
Black holes cannot kill vampires.
.

There is a difference in taking the book 'as written' and taking the book 'as gospel'. Taking a bambi Vs Godzilla situation that was not considered in the book at all (Vampires and Black Holes) and interpreting things as "Vamps can survive black holes" is kind of leading to sillyness.

The books are not Gospel. RPG books can not be exhaustive manuals for every possible situation. To have any expectation of them to be or to treat them like it puts too much wieght on their shoulders. Expanding everything to the level of detail required to answer every possible question (Vampires black holes, the link between the vamp and the VI, fundamental material basis behind silver/wood allergy) would be a book 2000 pages long and no one would buy it. RPG rules are reality 'shorthand'.

Because otherwise, you'd have Desmond Bradford noticing that one in every 20 times, his soldiers seem to hit what they're aiming at with double the usual destructive power of their rifles.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You're coming at this from a perspective of physics, but this is about magic.
Moonlight is physically the same as sunlight.
But it's not magically the same.

Really? One could argue otherwise very easily. For starters lunar effects on ley lines are a lot like solar effects.... but smaller. There are some differences... but in the biggest pound for pounder. I think the term 'magically' is used incorrectly here.

Perhaps you're going more towards the 'cultural significance', where the PB writers are pulling from in order to write their magic rules. Culturally, the sun is not the same as the moon, and this is the source of the different magical effects. And if you use that argument, you're using a basis behind the rule to make a determination....

But if you can do that to say that things that SHOULD damage vampires (reflected lunar sunlight) DON'T, then you can *also* use it to say that other things *SHOULD* damage vampires (like Jade, for instance, which in Eastern mystical traditions mas pretty much the same place as Silver does in Western).

DamonS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
They need blood.
That's really it, as far as I recall.

Nope, they need magic too. There is no process to turn blood into a near-immortal regerating killing machine without some magic, or some of whatever it is that makes them 'supernatural'. Without 'supernaturalness', you can't have vampires... It's an unusual way to think about it, but a valid one. The supernaturalness makes them hit harder, regenerate (they don't need blood to do that), and all sorts of things.

I don't get you.
Are you coming from a "You are what you eat" sort of standpoint?

It's implied that there is a link to the vampire intelligence, which is why killing the intelligence kills the vamp. The Intelligence is the source of this 'supernaturalness'. If there is a link.... then in theory, severing the link will kill the vamp. But the books, again, don't spend much time discussing the link one way or another. That's for the GM to decide.

I agree that this makes some sense.
You might need a Supernatural Intelligence in order to break the link, but that doesn't mean it can't be broken.

Sounds to me like an enterprising shifter developing a 'sever link' spell would be quite effective.

Spell of Legend, maybe.
Or very high level, expensive spell that only hits one vampire at a time.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Possibly, but I take the book as it's written.
Black holes cannot kill vampires.
.

There is a difference in taking the book 'as written' and taking the book 'as gospel'. Taking a bambi Vs Godzilla situation that was not considered in the book at all (Vampires and Black Holes) and interpreting things as "Vamps can survive black holes" is kind of leading to sillyness.

How so?

The books are not Gospel.

No, they're better than that.
Or, at least, they should be better than a compilation of documents up to 6,000 years old, poorly edited, translated into another language, and full of errors and vagueries.

RPG books can not be exhaustive manuals for every possible situation. To have any expectation of them to be or to treat them like it puts too much wieght on their shoulders.

I disagree.

Expanding everything to the level of detail required to answer every possible question (Vampires black holes, the link between the vamp and the VI, fundamental material basis behind silver/wood allergy) would be a book 2000 pages long and no one would buy it. RPG rules are reality 'shorthand'.

Except when they're not.
For example, the book could really mean that vampires are invulnerable to everything but the listed ways to kill them.

Because otherwise, you'd have Desmond Bradford noticing that one in every 20 times, his soldiers seem to hit what they're aiming at with double the usual destructive power of their rifles.

I get what you mean here.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You're coming at this from a perspective of physics, but this is about magic.
Moonlight is physically the same as sunlight.
But it's not magically the same.

Really? One could argue otherwise very easily. For starters lunar effects on ley lines are a lot like solar effects.... but smaller. There are some differences... but in the biggest pound for pounder. I think the term 'magically' is used incorrectly here.

Perhaps you're going more towards the 'cultural significance', where the PB writers are pulling from in order to write their magic rules. Culturally, the sun is not the same as the moon, and this is the source of the different magical effects. And if you use that argument, you're using a basis behind the rule to make a determination....

No, I'm talking about magic.
Palladium bases their magic system on real-world magic and folklore (whether it's real or not, the stories about it are), as well as fantasy literature and games.
And in none of these sources is moonlight the same as sunlight, mystically speaking.
Werewolves turn at the light of the full moon, not the sun.
Vampires aren't even uncomfortable in the strongest moonlight, but they're weakened or hurt by weak sunlight.
Many magic rituals must be performed by moonlight. Or by sunlight.
But it's specified in the ritual which one (when it's important); it's not an either/or thing.
Sun Gods/Goddesses and Moon Gods/Goddesses are seperate entities with seperate powers.

Mystically speaking, the sun and the moon are seperate entities, as are sunlight and moonlight.

But if you can do that to say that things that SHOULD damage vampires (reflected lunar sunlight) DON'T, then you can *also* use it to say that other things *SHOULD* damage vampires (like Jade, for instance, which in Eastern mystical traditions mas pretty much the same place as Silver does in Western).

Mystically speaking, silver and jade are also seperate entitites.

What you need is to ask the goddess Ameretat to help you kill vampires real good.
Free the damned: save vs magic of 18 or crumbles to dust.
Cleansing blast 2d6X10M(3d6X10sdc) to creatures that live off of PPE by blasting them with pure life force plus makes em hungry and weak.

Rifter #38 - Darkvare can destroy a vampire in two fashions. They natually hunt undead... read it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
I agree that this makes some sense.
You might need a Supernatural Intelligence in order to break the link, but that doesn't mean it can't be broken.

There we go, Way to kill a vampire #53 that's not in the book. However, the basis is on logic because the book is incomplete (space limitations, etc). It's up to the GM to decide how 'easy' it would be to break the link, how to do it, and whether a party could do it. All the book says is "Killing the vamp intelligence kills the vamp", it says little about the link, and *nothing* about whether it can be broken or not.

However, it places the GM in an awkward place. Obviously there is a link. But if the link were *absolutely* unbreakable, this would have deserved mention. But it's not.

Which is OK. RPG's can't be comprehensive, we will not sit for 2000 pages on one topic. So we have to extrapolate. We use the pre-existing knowledge, and extrapolate into previously un-mentioned ideas.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Except when they're not.
For example, the book could really mean that vampires are invulnerable to everything but the listed ways to kill them.

The book never mentions breaking the link, only that killing the Master Intelligence kills the vamp. But breaking the link is a logical extension... then it becomes a matter of asking what are logical extensions or not.

But arguing that *no extensions are meant*... the books are not meant to be looked at like that. Especially not in a system as nebulous as Rifts. the guys at PB themselves extend the list, Uranium isn't mentioned until Triax! (Vamp kingdoms leads you to thing Vamps don't mind Radiation.... that is changed in Triax.)

Killer Cyborg wrote:No, I'm talking about magic.
Palladium bases their magic system on real-world magic and folklore (whether it's real or not, the stories about it are), as well as fantasy literature and games.
And in none of these sources is moonlight the same as sunlight, mystically speaking.
Werewolves turn at the light of the full moon, not the sun.
Vampires aren't even uncomfortable in the strongest moonlight, but they're weakened or hurt by weak sunlight.
Many magic rituals must be performed by moonlight. Or by sunlight.
But it's specified in the ritual which one (when it's important); it's not an either/or thing.
Sun Gods/Goddesses and Moon Gods/Goddesses are seperate entities with seperate powers.

Mystically speaking, the sun and the moon are seperate entities, as are sunlight and moonlight.

Mystically speaking, silver and jade are also seperate entitites.

There is that extrapolation again! Which is ok, but don't try to stop others from extrapolating. The "Moonlight should hurt vampires" is a much shorter extrapolation.

Either you get to extrapolate (I think you do), at which point one can argue about whether things are separate mystical entities and to bring out the unified elements to vampire slaying...

Or you don't get to extrapolate. At which point, the *Rules* are clear.

Sunlight hurts vampires

Reflected sunlight hurts vampires

If the sunlight is too weak (globe of daylight), it doesn't hurt them

Moonlight *Is* reflected sunlight

Moonlight doesn't hurt vampires, in itself, it must be too weak

Threfore *Intensified* moonlight should hurt vampires.

.. Unless they extend more and introduce Necritized glass (I loved that idea!).

Extrapolation is OK. And refusing to do it leads to odd games where things *Really* don't make sense (because RPG rules also break a law of physics or two... but we let them go). Extrapolation is how we can bridge the gap and do good gaming to boot.

Sunlight will kill a vampire, but what if you're on Pluto? Or some other planet in the same galaxy where our sun's light reaches it?

The Beast wrote:Sunlight will kill a vampire, but what if you're on Pluto? Or some other planet in the same galaxy where our sun's light reaches it?

I always figured it would do damage proportional to the inverse square law. Double the distance from the Sun, and it's doing four times less damage, and so on. So a vampire on Pluto would be taking Sunlight damage at a rate of 1/1600 that it would on Earth. Which, for all intents and purposes, is none (continually rolling max damage would mean 1MD per 27 melee rounds).

Zazshann wrote:It's a this point I always like to bring up a cross-gaming interdimensional weapon; the synchro cannon and/or SDF-class main guns from Robotech. They say they destroy EVERYTHING in thier path of fire. So would they kill a vampire? What happens when the immovabale meets the irresistable force? does it create a paradox that destroys the entire megaverse? What if the vampire parries with a rune weapon?

For all their power, the synchro cannon and its larger relatives are still mundane, non-magical weapons to which vampires have no particular weakness, so I'd imagine while they'd be vaporized, they'd probably re-form in short order. There's no magic in Robotech, after all.

I suppose on a similar note, what about antimatter? Would a vampire be irrevocably annihilated into energy by contact with it? Would it somehow manage to reconvert its lost body from energy back into matter? Or would it be utterly unaffected, meaning vampires could literally manipulate antimatter with their bare hands?

sHaka wrote:

J. Lionheart wrote:

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

Nope. It'll incapacitate the vamp temporarily (by rending its body in to many tiny pieces), but it'll reform and come back soon enough.

Even that wouldn't happen - the fusion block would just have no effect, other than the explosive force causing serious knockdown - the vampire's body would be unharmed. If the fusion block was silver plated or contained in a wooden box then it could scatter the vamp's body as the silver/wood fragments tore through it (only to regenerate back).

I love the idea but likely the container would be vaporized as the fusion block does lots 'o MD and silver and wood are not going to stand up to such a blast. Make it out of MDC wood chips in MDC resin and you got yourself a whoop ass vamp grenade. The small prefragmented wood bits would probably get lodged in the vamp and I would give a pretty high percent chance to stake the heart with one of the slivers and the low mass of each particle the would have a short range.

I just remembered something. Aren't black holes in Rifts super nexus points? If so then they wouldn't be trapping many vampires.

The Beast wrote:I just remembered something. Aren't black holes in Rifts super nexus points? If so then they wouldn't be trapping many vampires.

Blackhole can be used like wormholes to get to other places, but you have to be going over the speed of light AND make a piloting check to avoid hitting the black holes center and never escaping. So unless you have FTL vampires, the world is safe.

Zazshann wrote:It's a this point I always like to bring up a cross-gaming interdimensional weapon; the synchro cannon and/or SDF-class main guns from Robotech. They say they destroy EVERYTHING in thier path of fire. So would they kill a vampire? What happens when the immovabale meets the irresistable force? does it create a paradox that destroys the entire megaverse? What if the vampire parries with a rune weapon?

This is an easy one! Vampires/werewolves, etc, take no such damage, not even from planet-busting Mehanoid disintegration beams. The practical use of this is simple! You just atomize a planet with such a beam, and in the cloud, floating, unharmed, will be all the vampires/werewolves,, and the like, for easy pick-up! When the mechanoids seek vampire stock to test, this is undoubtedly how they will obtain it.

This is particularly interesting when stars go supernova and engulf planets, since werewolves don't take damage from sunlight or fire, they are unharmed, and all across the megaverse, there are were-beast colonies inside stars. Lonely creatures who saw their world atomized, but are making due, after all, the fires of a stellar furnace, may be sufficient to destroy entire planets, but are unable to kill a werewolf.... that is until the lat stage of star lifetime, where at last the fusion leads to heavy elements such as silver being formed, at which point the werewolves perish.

Of course, all of this is negated, upon parrying with a rune weapon. As natural 20's are automatic successes, if there are 20 or so rune-weapon welding beings on the plant, they all roll a parry, statistically speaking at least one will get the natural 20, at then both the atomization beam and the star supernova can be blocked. This is how The Splugorth avoid such a fate for their planets. As Splynncryth says to his rune-weapon wielders "If you see the supernova coming. try to parry it...... trust me... I've been around for millenia... I know how this works".

The rules are very clear.

DamonS wrote:

Zazshann wrote:It's a this point I always like to bring up a cross-gaming interdimensional weapon; the synchro cannon and/or SDF-class main guns from Robotech. They say they destroy EVERYTHING in thier path of fire. So would they kill a vampire? What happens when the immovabale meets the irresistable force? does it create a paradox that destroys the entire megaverse? What if the vampire parries with a rune weapon?

This is an easy one! Vampires/werewolves, etc, take no such damage, not even from planet-busting Mehanoid disintegration beams. The practical use of this is simple! You just atomize a planet with such a beam, and in the cloud, floating, unharmed, will be all the vampires/werewolves,, and the like, for easy pick-up! When the mechanoids seek vampire stock to test, this is undoubtedly how they will obtain it.

This is particularly interesting when stars go supernova and engulf planets, since werewolves don't take damage from sunlight or fire, they are unharmed, and all across the megaverse, there are were-beast colonies inside stars. Lonely creatures who saw their world atomized, but are making due, after all, the fires of a stellar furnace, may be sufficient to destroy entire planets, but are unable to kill a werewolf.... that is until the lat stage of star lifetime, where at last the fusion leads to heavy elements such as silver being formed, at which point the werewolves perish.

Of course, all of this is negated, upon parrying with a rune weapon. As natural 20's are automatic successes, if there are 20 or so rune-weapon welding beings on the plant, they all roll a parry, statistically speaking at least one will get the natural 20, at then both the atomization beam and the star supernova can be blocked. This is how The Splugorth avoid such a fate for their planets. As Splynncryth says to his rune-weapon wielders "If you see the supernova coming. try to parry it...... trust me... I've been around for millenia... I know how this works".

The rules are very clear.

Zazshann wrote:And what if a priest of Thoth blessed the synchro cannon? A holy synchro cannon? Or turn it into a holy symbol for a new god?

And don't forget the +1 to strike that a blessed synchro cannon would have.

Which would be needed, as there is no "Weapon proficiency synchro cannon" and as such firing one is at the unskilled penalty. The requirements of a '5 or more to hit' would be absolutely a killer here, with, upon analysis, the realization that "hitting the broadside of a planet" not being as easy as one would think.

But if you get *Real* close, within 500 feet, you can get an additional, and much needed, +1 to strike.

The rules are clear.

DamonS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
I agree that this makes some sense.
You might need a Supernatural Intelligence in order to break the link, but that doesn't mean it can't be broken.

There we go, Way to kill a vampire #53 that's not in the book.

Really?
What are the first 52?

However, the basis is on logic because the book is incomplete (space limitations, etc). It's up to the GM to decide how 'easy' it would be to break the link, how to do it, and whether a party could do it. All the book says is "Killing the vamp intelligence kills the vamp", it says little about the link, and *nothing* about whether it can be broken or not.

And since that's the only listed way to do it, officially that's the only way to do it.

Anything else is a house rule.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Except when they're not.
For example, the book could really mean that vampires are invulnerable to everything but the listed ways to kill them.

The book never mentions breaking the link, only that killing the Master Intelligence kills the vamp. But breaking the link is a logical extension... then it becomes a matter of asking what are logical extensions or not.

Okay, maybe the link isn't broken.

But arguing that *no extensions are meant*... the books are not meant to be looked at like that.

Says who?

Especially not in a system as nebulous as Rifts. the guys at PB themselves extend the list, Uranium isn't mentioned until Triax! (Vamp kingdoms leads you to thing Vamps don't mind Radiation.... that is changed in Triax.)

1. Vampires still don't mind radiation, just radioactive material.
2. Until Triax came out, vampires weren't vulnerable to uranium. It was a rule change.

Killer Cyborg wrote:No, I'm talking about magic.
Palladium bases their magic system on real-world magic and folklore (whether it's real or not, the stories about it are), as well as fantasy literature and games.
And in none of these sources is moonlight the same as sunlight, mystically speaking.
Werewolves turn at the light of the full moon, not the sun.
Vampires aren't even uncomfortable in the strongest moonlight, but they're weakened or hurt by weak sunlight.
Many magic rituals must be performed by moonlight. Or by sunlight.
But it's specified in the ritual which one (when it's important); it's not an either/or thing.
Sun Gods/Goddesses and Moon Gods/Goddesses are seperate entities with seperate powers.

Mystically speaking, the sun and the moon are seperate entities, as are sunlight and moonlight.

Mystically speaking, silver and jade are also seperate entitites.

There is that extrapolation again! Which is ok, but don't try to stop others from extrapolating.

It's not extrapolation; I'm stating the way things are.

The "Moonlight should hurt vampires" is a much shorter extrapolation.

Yet it doesn't make as much sense, and it doesn't fit with how magic works either in the game or in real life.
And it doesn't fit with how vampire vulnerabilities work either.

DamonS wrote:

Zazshann wrote:It's a this point I always like to bring up a cross-gaming interdimensional weapon; the synchro cannon and/or SDF-class main guns from Robotech. They say they destroy EVERYTHING in thier path of fire. So would they kill a vampire? What happens when the immovabale meets the irresistable force? does it create a paradox that destroys the entire megaverse? What if the vampire parries with a rune weapon?

This is an easy one! Vampires/werewolves, etc, take no such damage, not even from planet-busting Mehanoid disintegration beams. The practical use of this is simple! You just atomize a planet with such a beam, and in the cloud, floating, unharmed, will be all the vampires/werewolves,, and the like, for easy pick-up! When the mechanoids seek vampire stock to test, this is undoubtedly how they will obtain it.

Correct.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Yet it doesn't make as much sense, and it doesn't fit with how magic works either in the game or in real life.

Just for clarification... exactly how *does* magic work in 'real life'?

DamonS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Yet it doesn't make as much sense, and it doesn't fit with how magic works either in the game or in real life.

Just for clarification... exactly how *does* magic work in 'real life'?

I think he meant 'how magic is described in real life'.

... unless there's something you're not telling us, KC.

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:2. Until Triax came out, vampires weren't vulnerable to uranium. It was a rule change.

Incorrect.

Until Triax came out, we didn't *know* Vampires were vulnerable to U-rounds.
But it strains belief rather badly to imagine that one morning, vampires across the multiverse wake up with a funny feeling that all of a sudden they've picked up a new weakness.

Mid-way through a fight somewhere in the Black Forest a nebulous wave of Rules Change washes over the battlefield and railgun slugs go from bouncing off a vampire to punching big and very surprised holes in him?

I don't think so.

And I suppose before Rifts Japan the -10 rule existed, we just didn't know about it?
I don't think so.

You're confusing in-game and out-of-game.
Before Triax came out, vampires were immune to uranium.
After Triax came out, the new rule retroactively applies to all of in-game history, but that doesn't change the fact that vampires were immune to uranium before Triax came out.

Reminder:
"Before Triax Came Out" is an out-of-game time marker, not an in-game time-marker.
Characters in the game never say, "Hey, remember before Triax came out, when we shot those vampires with uranium rounds and it just bounced right off?"
But players might.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:ok here is a quandery "how can you kill something that is already DEAD?"

Someone asked if a Souldrinker rule weapon would work on a Vampier. The answer is no it would not work, becasue to activat the souldrinking blood has to be drawn. Sence Vamps are dead, they don't have blood.

Unless of course they have just eaten. In which case whose blood is it, the vampire's, or the victim's?

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:And I suppose before Rifts Japan the -10 rule existed, we just didn't know about it?
I don't think so.

You're confusing in-game and out-of-game.

Actually, I rather think you are.

One is a mechanics issue based around the way the world is modelled - the -10 rule. Palladium has gone through numerous evolutions of this sort (Dodge bonuses from Speed anyone?). That's OOC - all of the 'rules' handling the way things are resolved with dice are, though they model IC things.

The other is a specific in-game notification - vampiric immunities, which are a matter of IC knowledge and derivation. That we did not /know/ vampires could be affected by Uranium rounds does not mean that they could not, only that we were ignorant of it. Triax brought us up to date - there is nothing, no-where that suggests this cannot happen again with anything from HappyLuckyRainbowBlasters to a sudden, inexplicable allergy to golf balls.

In order for that theory to work, you would have to believe that Kevin Siemieda, when writing Vampire Kingdoms, had the thought:
"Hey, I know! I'll have vampires also be vulnerable to uranium, but I won't list it in this book; I'll just put it in the Triax book that won't come out for years...."

While there's nothing stopping you from believing that, it is pretty absurd.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Reminder:
"Before Triax Came Out" is an out-of-game time marker, not an in-game time-marker.
Characters in the game never say, "Hey, remember before Triax came out, when we shot those vampires with uranium rounds and it just bounced right off?"
But players might.

Patronising, but true - and rather my point, so I'm not entirely sure who it's aimed at. In-game, this has always been the case. It is only out of game that things have changed. Therefore Palladium vampires have *always* had this vulnerability, but we were not aware of it.

Only in-game.
I was discussing out-of-game when you jumped in and tried to correct me.
The above comments were directed at you, to point this out.

Here's an instant-replay:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:2. Until Triax came out, vampires weren't vulnerable to uranium. It was a rule change.

Incorrect.

What I'm doing is pointing out that I was not actually incorrect; you're just getting in-game and out-of-game confused.

My statement remains true.
-Before Triax came out, vampires were not vulnerable to uranium.
-It was a rule change. (which is an out-of-game event)

Whether it was a rule change that can (and/or should) be retroactively applied to the in-game characters and story-lines is another matter entirely, and irrelevent to the point I was making.

Qev wrote:I think he meant 'how magic is described in real life'.

... unless there's something you're not telling us, KC.

Magic is described in a million diffeerent ways from a million different cultures. Exactly whose 'description' are we using? Not the game's. I don't call 'that cute goth girl who works at The Starbucks' an authority on magic.... ok yes I do... but only to her face.... cuz I'm lonely.... but I don't mean it.... really... boy her nose ring is cute.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
You're confusing in-game and out-of-game.
Before Triax came out, vampires were immune to uranium.
After Triax came out, the new rule retroactively applies to all of in-game history, but that doesn't change the fact that vampires were immune to uranium before Triax came out..

And the cognitive dissonance behind that statement underscores that RPG's are not comprehensive tomes describing reality.

For starters, the nonsensical conclusions that come from trying to treat an RPG world as self-consistent solely within its own rules, leads to more innanity than its worth. If they are treated as a 'reality shorthand', then you take the internal inconsistencies with a grain of salt, make logical extrapolations in situations where things break down (Vampires in black holes), and move on with life.

Why are they shorthands? Have you ever *seen* how the equasions for damage work in real life!? Calculating how much damage a bullet does to something is not trivial. It's amazingly complicated, requiring many parameters, If something as definitive and understood as a gunshot is 'shorthanded', it is very reasonable to think that something much more nebulous as 'magic' is equally so. They give you an over simplified and fast mechanic to decide things so the game can continue. They do it for gunshots, and they do it for magic.

However, sticking to the rules dogmatically leads, again and again, to total demonstrations of cognitive dissonance (like uranium and vampires, with at first didn't hurt them, but then did). After all, if RPG's are the 100% comprehensive truth.... how does one truly reconcile the fact that the the CS hasn't figured out that the Rail Cannon on the UAR-1 enforcer has roughly the same firepower as an infantryman with a Wilks rifle (longer range, but similar destructive power). You would think SOMEONE in the CS would point this out and replace all UAR-1 cannons with arrayed laer rifles for double or triple the firepower. Not to mention that the UAR-1 is not strong enough to lift its own leg and therefore should not be able to move at all. And why 'four' missiles are impossible to dodge? Why not three or five?

I thiink a good afternoon with "Murphy's rules" would illustrate things nicely.

Vampires would be vulnerable to black holes. They are, after all, vulnerable to exposure to the sun. Which a black hole is... concentrated.

DamonS wrote:

Qev wrote:I think he meant 'how magic is described in real life'.

... unless there's something you're not telling us, KC.

Magic is described in a million diffeerent ways from a million different cultures. Exactly whose 'description' are we using?

All of them.
Unless you know of a culture that considered sunlight and moonlight to be the same thing, magically speaking.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You're confusing in-game and out-of-game.
Before Triax came out, vampires were immune to uranium.
After Triax came out, the new rule retroactively applies to all of in-game history, but that doesn't change the fact that vampires were immune to uranium before Triax came out..

And the cognitive dissonance behind that statement underscores that RPG's are not comprehensive tomes describing reality.

It certainly underscores that they're not perfect ones.

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:In order for that theory to work, you would have to believe that Kevin Siemieda, when writing Vampire Kingdoms, had the thought:
"Hey, I know! I'll have vampires also be vulnerable to uranium, but I won't list it in this book; I'll just put it in the Triax book that won't come out for years...."

While there's nothing stopping you from believing that, it is pretty absurd.

That's something of a logial leap there KC - or an illogical one, I'm not sure which just yet.

Actually, my belief would have to be (because it is) that KS as the writer had not considered alternative means of killing vampires as of that point, but that that has no effect on the continuity of the game world, since by his own admission he does not pretend to cover 'everything' in most matters.

But in the game, any game masters who had vampires hit by uranium rounds before Triax came out, would have been making a house rule if they had the vampires hurt by the U-rounds.
Because as far as the rules were concerned, vampires were impervious to harm except for the listed vulnerabilities.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only in-game.
I was discussing out-of-game when you jumped in and tried to correct me.
The above comments were directed at you, to point this out.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:2. Until Triax came out, vampires weren't vulnerable to uranium. It was a rule change.

Incorrect.

What I'm doing is pointing out that I was not actually incorrect; you're just getting in-game and out-of-game confused.

My statement remains true.
-Before Triax came out, vampires were not vulnerable to uranium.
-It was a rule change. (which is an out-of-game event)

Whether it was a rule change that can (and/or should) be retroactively applied to the in-game characters and story-lines is another matter entirely, and irrelevent to the point I was making.

Which unfortunately was not the point I corrected - and still am correcting you on - your blunt statement was that '2. Until Triax came out, vampires weren't vulnerable to uranium. It was a rule change.'

How exactly is that different from "
-Before Triax came out, vampires were not vulnerable to uranium.
-It was a rule change. (which is an out-of-game event)"

My point is that *you* are getting in-game and out-of-game confused.

Your point is wrong, and you have yet to provide any support for that point.

In-game : Vampires have always been vulnerable to Uranium, but Triax have only recently discovered it 'cause that stuff is not exactly common.

Agreed that this is the current in-game state of things.
It was NOT the in-game state of things before the Triax book came out.

Out-of-game : Vampire rules have been added to (no existing rules have been changed).

Now you're just trying to nit-pick, but I can do that too.

Watch closely....

"An addition IS a change."

(But do you really want to waste the time, space, and effort going back and forth over trivial crap like this?)

Bizarrely the list on VK, p26-29 *does* list their weaknesses, but at no point states that they are exhaustive or complete, whereas p24 just lists their specific immunities.

So, since p. 24 doesn't list "kittens" as one of their specific immunities, then vampires must be vulnerable to kittens?
What about horseradish?
What about the zillion other things not listed as specific immunities?

Seriously, the term "Invulnerability" covers all that.
It means that you are impervious to harm.

Vampires have Limited Invulnerability.
It is "Limited" simply because there are some substances that they can be hurt by.
These substances were listed.
They were invulnerable to everything else.

Edit:
And kindly erase a couple of those multiple posts...

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:But in the game, any game masters who had vampires hit by uranium rounds before Triax came out, would have been making a house rule if they had the vampires hurt by the U-rounds.
Because as far as the rules were concerned, vampires were impervious to harm except for the listed vulnerabilities.

Actually, as per my point a little later on, they'd have been house-ruling it *both* ways. They'd have been a lot more likely to be 'right' by saying 'no effect' for the rules as written at the time, but they generally list specific things they *are* immune to rather than 'everything except'.

Already addressed.
They are invulnerable to anything not officially listed as a vulnerability.

I know that amongst those items are 'bullets' which could include U-rounds, but that would also include 'silver bullets' so we'll have to assume he meant lead and suchlike. In any case, more on that later.

It means any kind of bullets that are not made of one of the specific listed vulnerabilities.

Killer Cyborg wrote:How exactly is that different from "
-Before Triax came out, vampires were not vulnerable to uranium.
-It was a rule change. (which is an out-of-game event)"

Because your blanket statement was literally innacurate.

As opposed to figuratively inaccurate...?

There is a distinct in-game difference between 'were not vulnerable' and 'we didn't know they were vulnerable'. Actually, I didn't spot the rules on until later.

There is indeed a difference, and the fact is that vampires were not vulnerable to uranium until that rule came out.
The "we didn't know they were vulnerable" only applies in-game, as in "Our characters didn't know that vamps were vulnerable to uranium".
It doesn't make sense to say, "Our players didn't know that vampires were vulnerable to uranium" before Triax, because vampires weren't vulnerable to uranium before that book came out.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Your point is wrong, and you have yet to provide any support for that point.

You say that a lot

People are wrong a lot.

an addition is a change - so you can have that one, I mainly wanted to make the point that it's surprisingly significant in this particular case when for so many, so *very* many threads people have argued that 'only X can kill a vampire, nothing else, ever, nya na na na nah' when in fact, there's just a list of things that are known to do it with no text anywhere stating that it's complete or exhaustive.

Again, there's the whole "Invulnerability" thing.

Killer Cyborg wrote:So, since p. 24 doesn't list "kittens" as one of their specific immunities, then vampires must be vulnerable to kittens?
What about horseradish?
What about the zillion other things not listed as specific immunities?

Seriously, the term "Invulnerability" covers all that.
It means that you are impervious to harm.

Vampires have Limited Invulnerability.
It is "Limited" simply because there are some substances that they can be hurt by.
These substances were listed.
They were invulnerable to everything else.

Ahhh, the aggressive misconception stage - I love this one, and you do it so well.

Thanks, but you seem to have mistaken humor for aggression for some reason.
(I personally don't consider "kittens" or "horseradish" to be aggressive words.)

'Because you didn't vote for Bush you must hate liberty and want to sell the Lincoln Memorial to Saddam for a Biowar lab!'?

Well, that's out of left field....

Say rather that *you* house-rule the Vampire list as 'these are all the things that hurt a vampire' and I house-rule it as 'these are all the things *known* to hurt a vampire'.

Only I'm not making a house-rule; I'm going by the text.
Vampires are Invulnerable by default.
The only thing that over-rides that default are the listed vulnerabilities.

It's another of those subtle differences that makes it a lot easier to swallow later addenda.
(and I have no idea if that's how you spell addenda, or even if it's a word, but it sure does sound educated, huh?).

"addenda"

I had to look it up.

As for kittens... well, in certain regional myths cats protect the home from supernatural forces, so it's not impossible.

Certain demons DO have cats as a listed weakness (check out Creatures of Chaos), but vamps aren't one of them.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And kindly erase a couple of those multiple posts...

Yeh, that was my bad - I got jittery and hit 'quote' instead of 'edit' then got lazy and didn't read all the way back up past the top of my own post, sorry.

Happens to everybody now and then.
I only pointed it out in case you didn't notice on your own.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
All of them.
Unless you know of a culture that considered sunlight and moonlight to be the same thing, magically speaking.

Clarification #2. What on Earth does 'Magically speaking" mean? Is this another one of those " how magic works in real life" statements?

DamonS wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
All of them.
Unless you know of a culture that considered sunlight and moonlight to be the same thing, magically speaking.

Clarification #2. What on Earth does 'Magically speaking" mean? Is this another one of those " how magic works in real life" statements?

Essentially, yes.

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

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

Killer Cyborg wrote:Essentially, yes.

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

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

Kinda makes you wonder how the Japanese ended up with a sun goddess and moon god, though.

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Essentially, yes.

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

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

Kinda makes you wonder how the Japanese ended up with a sun goddess and moon god, though.

Yeah, as I was writing that I though, "Except for the Japanese; I think they have things backwards..."

It's a good question, one that I will ponder.

Kuseru Satsujin wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Essentially, yes.

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

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

Kinda makes you wonder how the Japanese ended up with a sun goddess and moon god, though.

And the Norse.

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Already addressed.
They are invulnerable to anything not officially listed as a vulnerability.

Oooh, ooh, my turn to play....

'Your point is wrong, and you have yet to provide any support for that point.'

Actually, I have.
There's the word "Invulnerability".
Perhaps you should look it up?

Basically though, it says 'limited invulnerability' and lists a set of things. It never states anywhere that this list is exhaustive or complete, and we now know canonically that it is not.

It lists a set of things that get the point across, that vampires are invulnerable to everything except for a handful of listed vulnerabilities.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Thanks, but you seem to have mistaken humor for aggression for some reason.
(I personally don't consider "kittens" or "horseradish" to be aggressive words.)

It's a descriptive term for something that's been coming up a lot lately in U.S. politics - hence my Bush quote. You use it a lot in your arguments too, though perhaps without being aware of it.

'Agressive' in this case I take more to mean 'argumentative' - basically it boils down to a refusal to accept a middle ground. 'If you do not agree with A, then you *must* mean B'.

Only that's not what I'm doing.

You claimed that the VK book listed their "specific immunities"
I'm pointing out that you are wrong.
If the book listed their specific immunities, then that would mean that vampires were ONLY immune to the stuff listed.
Which is clearly not true.

I'm not saying, "If you do not agree with A, then you *must* mean B", I'm saying, "If you make claim A, then you must believe claim A".
Then I'm showing you how the claim is false.

It's possible that you meant something other than what you said, in which case you can revise your claim into a more accurate representation of your thoughts.
But as it stands, your claim was that vampires had specific immunities to the stuff listed, which obviously is not true.

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Actually, I have.
There's the word "Invulnerability".
Perhaps you should look it up?

Please tell me you wrote that even knowing that I would promptly reply by asking you to go and look up the word 'limited' which would seem to be the more pertinant part of the description.

I'm familiar with the word "limited".
In this case, it refers to the fact that the vampires' vulnerability is limited because of the specific listed weaknesses.

And that's even if it were in any way important because it's a section heading *not* the rules for their resistances, which are underneath it.

It's their power.
The description of the power below only reinforces the point of their invulnerability by description.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It lists a set of things that get the point across, that vampires are invulnerable to everything except for a handful of listed vulnerabilities.

Funny, you'd have thought they'd have gotten around to saying that with something like the words 'Invulnverable to everything such as (list), except (list)'.

Except they didn't.

Because it's common sense.

While I agree that they should have spelled it out, I can see why they didn't.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Only that's not what I'm doing.

You claimed that the VK book listed their "specific immunities"
I'm pointing out that you are wrong.
If the book listed their specific immunities, then that would mean that vampires were ONLY immune to the stuff listed.
Which is clearly not true.

I'm not saying, "If you do not agree with A, then you *must* mean B", I'm saying, "If you make claim A, then you must believe claim A".
Then I'm showing you how the claim is false.

It's possible that you meant something other than what you said, in which case you can revise your claim into a more accurate representation of your thoughts.
But as it stands, your claim was that vampires had specific immunities to the stuff listed, which obviously is not true.

Except that you have no evidence of any kind for your erroneous belief.

Sure I do. I've already provided quite a bit of it.
There's the definition of the word "invulnerability".
There's the fact that it's quite obvious that the description of the stuff that vampires are imprevious to is just to convey the extent of their invulnerability.
This is reinforced by passages such as "...are nearly impervious to all weapons, including mega-damage weapons. Fortunately, they are vulnerable to a handful of SDC items and magic."
It sets up the premise that vampires are invulnerable to everything except a few items, then explains what those items are.
It's quite clear, whether you want to admit it or not.

Vampires are listed as having Limited (key word) Invulnerability - a list of examples are then given - they are examples to give an idea of the sorts of things likely to be tried, rather than an exhaustive list.

Because they can't make a list of everything but silver, magic, wood, water, etc..

They are also listed as having a set of weaknesses - these are *never* stated to be complete or conclusive, which you seem to be under the delusion that they were - we now know that they are specifically *not* complete or conclusive from later canon sources.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Vampires were invulnerable except to the listed weaknesses. There is nothing in the book to indicate that they had any other weaknesses.
The writers changed things.

My claim - quite correctly as it happens to have been proved by Canon - is (and has always been) that vampiric immunity is to broad catagories of attacks, but that specific things not listed in weaknesses exist that can nonetheless harm them, and wait to be discovered.

And that's where you are once again wrong.
It's impossible to discover any new vulnerabilities for vampires.
Vampires don't exist.

Writers can create new vulnerabilities for them, but that's not discovery; that's just a change in the rules.

Despite your claim that you're doing something else, you seem to be locked into this fallacy that just because I can read two words and pick the important one ('limited') I must therefore believe that anything not on the list is *obviously* able to hurt them (such as human fists). Sorry, but that's just not the case.

Actually, "limited" is the less important word.
You're ignoring the more important on, "invulnerable".

The word "limited" only comes into play because the vampires' vulnerability is limited by their specific listed vulnerabilities.

Korentin_Black wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm familiar with the word "limited".
In this case, it refers to the fact that the vampires' vulnerability is limited because of the specific listed weaknesses.

Which is of course the way you mis-read the rules, but there still doesn't seem to be any proof to support your position. There's just a box and a list of examples with absolutely nothing anywhere stating that the list is a complete one except for the listed weaknesses, when to do so would have been effortless.

Already covered. Palladium is infamous for not spelling out "common sense" details.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's their power.
The description of the power below only reinforces the point of their invulnerability by description.

Not quite. It's what they *called* their power for descriptive purposes, the actual rules are underneath it. They could call the power 'Platinum Zucchini' (which would be a great name for a rock band) with the same description and Vampires would be exactly the same as they are now. Though perhaps shinier.

Lame.
Try again.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Because it's common sense.

While I agree that they should have spelled it out, I can see why they didn't.

Ahhhh, here we go. 'Common Sense' = 'I think it should be like that'.

Your common sense says one thing, and that's called a house rule. My common sense says another, and *that's* a house rule too. The actual rules in the book unfortunately, don't agree with you - and, come to that don't agree with me until Triax.

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

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

Killer Cyborg wrote:Sure I do. I've already provided quite a bit of it.
There's the definition of the word "invulnerability".
There's the fact that it's quite obvious that the description of the stuff that vampires are imprevious to is just to convey the extent of their invulnerability.
This is reinforced by passages such as "...are nearly impervious to all weapons, including mega-damage weapons. Fortunately, they are vulnerable to a handful of SDC items and magic."
It sets up the premise that vampires are invulnerable to everything except a few items, then explains what those items are.
It's quite clear, whether you want to admit it or not.

Well, I already disproved your hangup with the word 'invulnerability',

Dude, you have disproved nothing.
You have stated your opinion that the names of powers mean nothing, but that's just an opinion, and one that isn't really based in anything tangible.
Unless you want to give a list of powers with names that don't describe the actual power.

but I love the way you also seem to be word-blind about things like 'nearly'.

"Nearly" = "With the exception of the listed weaknesses".

You've basically read the book and made one assumption - your assumption has been disproved in later books and was ropy to start with.

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

Killer Cyborg wrote:Because they can't make a list of everything but silver, magic, wood, water, etc..

They don't have to - we have this wonderful thing called the english language that lets us say the words 'they are immune to everything buit a few specific weaknesses' or 'nothing can harm a vampire except' in a dozen different ways and more.
Strangely, none of them get used.

You seem to be assuming a LOT more accuracy in description than can typically be expected from Palladium.
Spelling things out simply is not something that they're consistantly great at.
But look at the list of things that don't harm them, and try to explain how it is NOT intended to convey the fact that vampires are considered to be invulnerable as a general rule.
Then try to figure out why, if your theory is true, Palladium didn't use the English language to say the words 'they have other possible vulnerabilities that are not listed here", or some other brief and accurate description backing your view.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Vampires were invulnerable except to the listed weaknesses. There is nothing in the book to indicate that they had any other weaknesses.
The writers changed things.

You can believe that, and it's a perfectly workable house rule, it's just not supported by the literal text of the rules.

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

Killer Cyborg wrote:And that's where you are once again wrong.
It's impossible to discover any new vulnerabilities for vampires.
Vampires don't exist.

Writers can create new vulnerabilities for them, but that's not discovery; that's just a change in the rules.

Writers and GM's. At which point they, modelling the world for us, let us 'discover' them during the course of play. The reason I specifically use the word 'discover' rather than 'invent' is because the list of weaknesses as listed seems to be the standard, across-the-board medieval selection of vulnerabilities.
I would assume (and this is real speculation) that most, if any new ones would come about by applying high science or new magic to the creatures - U-rounds simply aren't available to ninety-nine percent of fantasy humans, for example.

But nice try to change the argument. ^_^

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

Killer Cyborg wrote:Actually, "limited" is the less important word.
You're ignoring the more important on, "invulnerable".

The word "limited" only comes into play because the vampires' vulnerability is limited by their specific listed vulnerabilities.

I don't know... 'limited' is by far the more important word if you're talking about an invulnerable creature, just ask Hector and Achilles...

No, in that case "Invulnerable" is definitely the more important word, because that's the standard state.
Achilles only had ONE weakness; he was invulnerable to everything else.
He had a form of limited invulnerability.
Just like vampires, only they have a few more specific weaknesses.

In this case however, you still have nothing to prove your believe save empty repetition.

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

Show me the part of the rules where it unequivocably states that your version is the canonical one.

Can't; it doesn't.

Now show me the part of the rules where it unequivocably states that your version is the canonical one.

You can't; it doesn't.

Palladium sucks at spelling things out, which means that a lot of time we're left trying to divine the author's intent.
Something that I'm better than you at, though you won't believe it.