Vampires Under Other Suns

Dimension Books & nothing but..

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

Okay, here's a question; we know Palladium vampires melt under the light of our sun, and I presume the same holds true for the more intense sunlight of blue giant stars, but how about red or brown dwarf stars? Is it intensity, UV/IR content that should determine lethality to vampires? Would, for example, a vampire be able to walk around unharmed on Pluto, where the sun shines with about a tenth of the same intensity as on Earth?
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

Any sun. Type of sun and UV content is irrelevent. The sun hurts because of mystic properties and nothing scientific or intensity matters.
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Any sun. Type of sun and UV content is irrelevent. The sun hurts because of mystic properties and nothing scientific or intensity matters.

yep…this.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Any sun. Type of sun and UV content is irrelevent. The sun hurts because of mystic properties and nothing scientific or intensity matters.


Well obviously intensity does matter, otherwise vampires wouldn't exist because day or night they'd always be exposed to sunlight since the light from distant suns at night also blankets all worlds. Whether you argue it scientifically or mystically distance from a sun clearly matters, there's also the issue as to whether a red sun qualifies as a 'proper' sun from mystical standards.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by eliakon »

I would suspect that "Sun" means "the star that is the orbited primary of the planet in question"

As for what counts as a 'sun' I would say "if its a star that provides light then its a sun"

As for distance... don't some of the PW books talk about vampires still having to hide out on the moons of a gas giant... that would tell us that even at that distance they still fear the sun.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

eliakon wrote:I would suspect that "Sun" means "the star that is the orbited primary of the planet in question"

As for what counts as a 'sun' I would say "if its a star that provides light then its a sun"

As for distance... don't some of the PW books talk about vampires still having to hide out on the moons of a gas giant... that would tell us that even at that distance they still fear the sun.


(Starts diving for my PW books to search for any such references)
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Any sun. Type of sun and UV content is irrelevent. The sun hurts because of mystic properties and nothing scientific or intensity matters.


Well obviously intensity does matter, otherwise vampires wouldn't exist because day or night they'd always be exposed to sunlight since the light from distant suns at night also blankets all worlds. Whether you argue it scientifically or mystically distance from a sun clearly matters


Yea, to be a sun, as opposed to a star, it has to be the star of the system you are currently in. which is a range limit, sure, but one so broad as to not matter much.

there's also the issue as to whether a red sun qualifies as a 'proper' sun from mystical standards.


What question? There's nothing anywhere to indicate red suns are mystically different from any other sun.

I guess it's a question sinse you just asked it, but given there is nothing indicating any difference, I can only come to the conclusion it dosn't matter if it's red or not.
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

Thoth: This planet, it orbits a star, correct?"
Vampire Intelligence: "Yes, it does. So what?"
Thoth: "It's not free-ranging? The planet, that is?"
VI: "No, it follows a regular orbit. What of it?"
Thoth: "The star is the center of the stellar gravity well? It is the center of the star system?"
VI: "Yes, and yes! Is there a point to this questioning?"
Thoth: "Then the star is this planet's sun? Agreed?"
VI: "Yes, agreed! Now GET TO THE POINT?"
Thoth: "By the Cosmic Order of All Things and the Nature of Dark Things, you are beholden to the Curse of Sunlight's Touch. It is Morning and the White Dwarf Sun Shineth."
VI: "What?! Sunlight? OhshAAAAUUUUUGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

taalismn wrote:Thoth: This planet, it orbits a star, correct?"
Vampire Intelligence: "Yes, it does. So what?"
Thoth: "It's not free-ranging? The planet, that is?"
VI: "No, it follows a regular orbit. What of it?"
Thoth: "The star is the center of the stellar gravity well? It is the center of the star system?"
VI: "Yes, and yes! Is there a point to this questioning?"
Thoth: "Then the star is this planet's sun? Agreed?"
VI: "Yes, agreed! Now GET TO THE POINT?"
Thoth: "By the Cosmic Order of All Things and the Nature of Dark Things, you are beholden to the Curse of Sunlight's Touch. It is Morning and the White Dwarf Sun Shineth."
VI: "What?! Sunlight? OhshAAAAUUUUUGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

*chuckles*
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by dreicunan »

If the planet orbits a binary star system, do both count? If you are not currently on a planet, does the light count. Does only the light of the sun of planet from which one's home soil comes count? If so, does light from that sun which only reaches a different system as starlight count? Does a globe of daylight cast by a caster from another world or on another planet count? There's some really good questions to answer for vampires in Space.
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Axelmania »

A star is "the sun" when you are on a planet which orbits it.

It is merely "a sun" if it is a star orbited by at least 1 planet but you are not actually on the planet.

So the question is, when does it use definite or indefinite articles for vampire damaging rules.
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

The generally accepted definition is the star around which planets and other celestial bodies in system revolve around. This would mean, so long as you are in a solar system with a star, it would effect you. Sinse we know distant stars in the sky do not, then once you are out of it's system, it no longer will

I would suppose this would make the outer ring of the Oort cloud the range limit. vampirs in space beyond this limit and before entering the limit of any other solar system would not have to fear the sunlight (Unless a UWW Warlock Marine (Air) casts Globe of True Daylight to fry them), and likely would not have to sleep at all as there would be no daytime.

In the case of binary systems, sinse they are both Suns in the star system, this would likely make them rather unattractive places for vampires to set up shop. although one could make the argument that if the planet revolves around one star but not the other, then only the one it revolves around will count, but you could make the argument they both count regardless. I lean twords both.
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by eliakon »

taalismn wrote:Thoth: This planet, it orbits a star, correct?"
Vampire Intelligence: "Yes, it does. So what?"
Thoth: "It's not free-ranging? The planet, that is?"
VI: "No, it follows a regular orbit. What of it?"
Thoth: "The star is the center of the stellar gravity well? It is the center of the star system?"
VI: "Yes, and yes! Is there a point to this questioning?"
Thoth: "Then the star is this planet's sun? Agreed?"
VI: "Yes, agreed! Now GET TO THE POINT?"
Thoth: "By the Cosmic Order of All Things and the Nature of Dark Things, you are beholden to the Curse of Sunlight's Touch. It is Morning and the White Dwarf Sun Shineth."
VI: "What?! Sunlight? OhshAAAAUUUUUGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

:lol: You sir are my hero :lol:
(or should that be 8) )
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
13eowulf
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by 13eowulf »

taalismn wrote:Thoth: This planet, it orbits a star, correct?"
Vampire Intelligence: "Yes, it does. So what?"
Thoth: "It's not free-ranging? The planet, that is?"
VI: "No, it follows a regular orbit. What of it?"
Thoth: "The star is the center of the stellar gravity well? It is the center of the star system?"
VI: "Yes, and yes! Is there a point to this questioning?"
Thoth: "Then the star is this planet's sun? Agreed?"
VI: "Yes, agreed! Now GET TO THE POINT?"
Thoth: "By the Cosmic Order of All Things and the Nature of Dark Things, you are beholden to the Curse of Sunlight's Touch. It is Morning and the White Dwarf Sun Shineth."
VI: "What?! Sunlight? OhshAAAAUUUUUGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

:ok:
Kinda wish there was an applause emote...
Oderint Dum Metuant.
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

Now imagine if you could drop a vampire onto the sunward surface of a planet orbiting a PULSAR star.... :twisted:
Ooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww.............
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

taalismn wrote:Now imagine if you could drop a vampire onto the sunward surface of a planet orbiting a PULSAR star.... :twisted:
Ooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww.............


As far as I can tell, intensity does not matter. A pulsar would do no more or less damage as any other
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

taalismn wrote:Thoth: This planet, it orbits a star, correct?"
Vampire Intelligence: "Yes, it does. So what?"
Thoth: "It's not free-ranging? The planet, that is?"
VI: "No, it follows a regular orbit. What of it?"
Thoth: "The star is the center of the stellar gravity well? It is the center of the star system?"
VI: "Yes, and yes! Is there a point to this questioning?"
Thoth: "Then the star is this planet's sun? Agreed?"
VI: "Yes, agreed! Now GET TO THE POINT?"
Thoth: "By the Cosmic Order of All Things and the Nature of Dark Things, you are beholden to the Curse of Sunlight's Touch. It is Morning and the White Dwarf Sun Shineth."
VI: "What?! Sunlight? OhshAAAAUUUUUGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"


Thing is white dwarfs aren't really stars in that sense anymore, they long since stopped fusing elements and are just really hot glowing coals now. They're basically 'dead', same with neutron stars and black holes.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Any sun. Type of sun and UV content is irrelevent. The sun hurts because of mystic properties and nothing scientific or intensity matters.


Well obviously intensity does matter, otherwise vampires wouldn't exist because day or night they'd always be exposed to sunlight since the light from distant suns at night also blankets all worlds. Whether you argue it scientifically or mystically distance from a sun clearly matters


Yea, to be a sun, as opposed to a star, it has to be the star of the system you are currently in. which is a range limit, sure, but one so broad as to not matter much.


That's semantics, stars and suns are the same thing, a sun doesn't somehow not really qualify as a sun because it's really far away. When a parent points to the stars in the sky he tells his kid 'see those stars? They're distant suns like our own'. There's no reason to think that sunlight does the same damage irrespective of distance from a sun to some arbitrary point (I believe you suggest the Oort cloud of a star system below) from it. If the power of sunlight burns vampires then obviously the more intense it is the more harm it will cause, just as logically when you're far enough away it does not harm at all (or so little harm vampiric regeneration offsets it healing what little damage it causes leaving it unnoticed).
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Any sun. Type of sun and UV content is irrelevent. The sun hurts because of mystic properties and nothing scientific or intensity matters.


Well obviously intensity does matter, otherwise vampires wouldn't exist because day or night they'd always be exposed to sunlight since the light from distant suns at night also blankets all worlds. Whether you argue it scientifically or mystically distance from a sun clearly matters


Yea, to be a sun, as opposed to a star, it has to be the star of the system you are currently in. which is a range limit, sure, but one so broad as to not matter much.


That's semantics, stars and suns are the same thing, a sun doesn't somehow not really qualify as a sun because it's really far away. When a parent points to the stars in the sky he tells his kid 'see those stars? They're distant suns like our own'. There's no reason to think that sunlight does the same damage irrespective of distance from a sun to some arbitrary point (I believe you suggest the Oort cloud of a star system below) from it. If the power of sunlight burns vampires then obviously the more intense it is the more harm it will cause, just as logically when you're far enough away it does not harm at all (or so little harm vampiric regeneration offsets it healing what little damage it causes leaving it unnoticed).


Scientifically, they are the same thing.

Mystically, they may not be.

We know starlight does not hurt vampires, we know sunlight does, we also know sunlight reflected from nearby celestial bodies does not hurt (Moonlight).

There is nothing indicating distance has anything to do with it, however, that is is "obvious" that more intense sunlight will cause more damage is pure conjecture on you part unless you have something from the books to substanitate it. until then, the damage from sunlight is the same regardless of intensity.
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

So, no extra bonuses for sending vampires sundiving? Just sunlight exposure damage?
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Any sun. Type of sun and UV content is irrelevent. The sun hurts because of mystic properties and nothing scientific or intensity matters.


Well obviously intensity does matter, otherwise vampires wouldn't exist because day or night they'd always be exposed to sunlight since the light from distant suns at night also blankets all worlds. Whether you argue it scientifically or mystically distance from a sun clearly matters


Yea, to be a sun, as opposed to a star, it has to be the star of the system you are currently in. which is a range limit, sure, but one so broad as to not matter much.


That's semantics, stars and suns are the same thing, a sun doesn't somehow not really qualify as a sun because it's really far away. When a parent points to the stars in the sky he tells his kid 'see those stars? They're distant suns like our own'. There's no reason to think that sunlight does the same damage irrespective of distance from a sun to some arbitrary point (I believe you suggest the Oort cloud of a star system below) from it. If the power of sunlight burns vampires then obviously the more intense it is the more harm it will cause, just as logically when you're far enough away it does not harm at all (or so little harm vampiric regeneration offsets it healing what little damage it causes leaving it unnoticed).


Scientifically, they are the same thing.

Mystically, they may not be.

We know starlight does not hurt vampires, we know sunlight does, we also know sunlight reflected from nearby celestial bodies does not hurt (Moonlight).

There is nothing indicating distance has anything to do with it, however, that is is "obvious" that more intense sunlight will cause more damage is pure conjecture on you part unless you have something from the books to substanitate it. until then, the damage from sunlight is the same regardless of intensity.


You're trying to find reasons to justify an end result instead of working from what we have towards a reasonable conclusion. A sun is a sun is a sun, you can't argue that 'well it's starlight not sunlight so it's not the same thing' when it is. If the light of a sun harms vampires then it's the same mystically as well as scientifically since again a sun is a sun is a sun. It doesn't stop being a sun because it's off 4 light years away instead of just 93 million miles away (and really by the time you get to Mars and especially farther out the sun itself isn't much beyond a very bright star in the sky from their perspective).

It should be obvious that we DO have evidence that distance matters because again the light from distant stars isn't a problem if distance didn't matter then those suns would very much be a problem yet they aren't. You're therefor trying to present your head canon as if it really were canon (as evidenced by your 'well if you haven't anything in the books that says otherwise then intensity is irrelevant' declaration). If memory serves I've seen somewhere that heavy shade does reduce the damage and again as already noted clearly distance does matter or else the light of distant suns would be a problem at night but it isn't.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

taalismn wrote:So, no extra bonuses for sending vampires sundiving? Just sunlight exposure damage?


Instant destruction would be the result.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by eliakon »

<much snipage of thread>
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
That's semantics, stars and suns are the same thing, a sun doesn't somehow not really qualify as a sun because it's really far away. When a parent points to the stars in the sky he tells his kid 'see those stars? They're distant suns like our own'. There's no reason to think that sunlight does the same damage irrespective of distance from a sun to some arbitrary point (I believe you suggest the Oort cloud of a star system below) from it. If the power of sunlight burns vampires then obviously the more intense it is the more harm it will cause, just as logically when you're far enough away it does not harm at all (or so little harm vampiric regeneration offsets it healing what little damage it causes leaving it unnoticed).


Scientifically, they are the same thing.

Mystically, they may not be.

We know starlight does not hurt vampires, we know sunlight does, we also know sunlight reflected from nearby celestial bodies does not hurt (Moonlight).

There is nothing indicating distance has anything to do with it, however, that is is "obvious" that more intense sunlight will cause more damage is pure conjecture on you part unless you have something from the books to substanitate it. until then, the damage from sunlight is the same regardless of intensity.


You're trying to find reasons to justify an end result instead of working from what we have towards a reasonable conclusion. A sun is a sun is a sun, you can't argue that 'well it's starlight not sunlight so it's not the same thing' when it is. If the light of a sun harms vampires then it's the same mystically as well as scientifically since again a sun is a sun is a sun. It doesn't stop being a sun because it's off 4 light years away instead of just 93 million miles away (and really by the time you get to Mars and especially farther out the sun itself isn't much beyond a very bright star in the sky from their perspective).

It should be obvious that we DO have evidence that distance matters because again the light from distant stars isn't a problem if distance didn't matter then those suns would very much be a problem yet they aren't. You're therefor trying to present your head canon as if it really were canon (as evidenced by your 'well if you haven't anything in the books that says otherwise then intensity is irrelevant' declaration). If memory serves I've seen somewhere that heavy shade does reduce the damage and again as already noted clearly distance does matter or else the light of distant suns would be a problem at night but it isn't.

Actually we can demonstrate the factual status of her claims.
Example, we can look at canon and know that moonlight does not harm vampires, even though a reflected sunbeam does. Why? They are both scientificially identical, but one is mystically different.

Next there is a canon spell to produce starlight... which does NOT harm vampires or repel them.

This clearly demonstrates the mystical difference between 'star light', 'sunlight' and 'moonlight' even though scientifically they are all the same thing.

The next problem with the argument that distance reduces damage is that the planets in phaseworld are not all grouped by distance.
You might say "so what" but I would point out that we, canonically, have examples of vampires being in space and a discussion about them. No where is any mention of them getting any special protections by being on farther planets or taking more damage by being on nearer planets. But what we DO have is discussions about the metaphysical issues... like how if the world is in eternal night they can be active... meaning that the weakness to sunlight is, once again, mystical in nature not scientific.
Which is the entire point.
Vampires are supernatural creatures with a mystic vulnerability the claim that we should use a scientific system of quantifying how that vulnerability works is... well counter intuitive at best.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
89er
Adventurer
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by 89er »

Sunday Sunday, Sunday.

Live at the Aten Stadium, see the cage mach held on the surface of Proxima Centauri! Can the Vampire intelligence Five claim the title belt from sun goddess X-Radiantz and her Flame Wing warband? Is this even possible? Do you want to see a master vampire get smashed through a table of solid moonbeams? Tickets are available now!

Just because fighting something on the surface of a star might not give you an advantage, does not mean people will want to see it.
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Yea, to be a sun, as opposed to a star, it has to be the star of the system you are currently in. which is a range limit, sure, but one so broad as to not matter much.


That's semantics, stars and suns are the same thing, a sun doesn't somehow not really qualify as a sun because it's really far away. When a parent points to the stars in the sky he tells his kid 'see those stars? They're distant suns like our own'. There's no reason to think that sunlight does the same damage irrespective of distance from a sun to some arbitrary point (I believe you suggest the Oort cloud of a star system below) from it. If the power of sunlight burns vampires then obviously the more intense it is the more harm it will cause, just as logically when you're far enough away it does not harm at all (or so little harm vampiric regeneration offsets it healing what little damage it causes leaving it unnoticed).


Scientifically, they are the same thing.

Mystically, they may not be.

We know starlight does not hurt vampires, we know sunlight does, we also know sunlight reflected from nearby celestial bodies does not hurt (Moonlight).

There is nothing indicating distance has anything to do with it, however, that is is "obvious" that more intense sunlight will cause more damage is pure conjecture on you part unless you have something from the books to substanitate it. until then, the damage from sunlight is the same regardless of intensity.


You're trying to find reasons to justify an end result instead of working from what we have towards a reasonable conclusion. A sun is a sun is a sun, you can't argue that 'well it's starlight not sunlight so it's not the same thing' when it is. If the light of a sun harms vampires then it's the same mystically as well as scientifically since again a sun is a sun is a sun. It doesn't stop being a sun because it's off 4 light years away instead of just 93 million miles away (and really by the time you get to Mars and especially farther out the sun itself isn't much beyond a very bright star in the sky from their perspective).

It should be obvious that we DO have evidence that distance matters because again the light from distant stars isn't a problem if distance didn't matter then those suns would very much be a problem yet they aren't. You're therefor trying to present your head canon as if it really were canon (as evidenced by your 'well if you haven't anything in the books that says otherwise then intensity is irrelevant' declaration). If memory serves I've seen somewhere that heavy shade does reduce the damage and again as already noted clearly distance does matter or else the light of distant suns would be a problem at night but it isn't.


Really? I'm not working twords any end at all. I'm just reading the book.


The only thing I need to prove is that sunlight does X damage. and here you go. Vampire Kingdoms Revised page 79. Direct sunlight deals 1d6*10 damage direct to HP to vampires.

That is the only thing i'm trying to justify.
Sunlight does X damage means Sunlight does X damage. location of sun relative to vampire does not appear to be a factor in the equation, except insofar as if they are considered a distant "star" instead it apparently does nothing. I'm not trying to build to that conclusion, that's the conclusion the books give me.

You are the one trying to justify a conclusion that is something different than "sunlight does X damage" to 'sunlight can also do Y damage if there is more intensity"

also that "All stars are suns" which again--sinse vampires can go out at night, clearly something makes sunlight and starlight different.

Page number for intensity having anything to do with it?
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

Okay, so vampires aren't affected by starlight or reflected sunlight, which would argue intensity, but if it's interpreted by those terms, then it should be possible to artificially recreate the elements of sunlight such that would affect vampires...but we know that ain't true, without the inclusion of magic.
So that all argues that magic and attendant symbology...or some greater factor....are the important factors.
So, the theory put forth by Nekira that the important factor is that the light comes from the sun(s) of the system the vampire is in...the area of effect determined by what? The gravity well? The area within the star's heliopause? With the added stipulation that proximity(and thus light intensity) to the designated sun doesn't matter, and that the damage done by direct sunlight is constant, regardless of intensity. Whether on Mercury or Pluto, the damage will be the same.
Add in Nightmask's assertion that the light should be the result of direct stellar fusion processes, and not simply stellar decay radiation, however visible(no infrared emitters basting our space vampires)....
We've roughed out some guidelines here...now we need to delineate it further, because some player's going to find a loophole or three...
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Yea, to be a sun, as opposed to a star, it has to be the star of the system you are currently in. which is a range limit, sure, but one so broad as to not matter much.


That's semantics, stars and suns are the same thing, a sun doesn't somehow not really qualify as a sun because it's really far away. When a parent points to the stars in the sky he tells his kid 'see those stars? They're distant suns like our own'. There's no reason to think that sunlight does the same damage irrespective of distance from a sun to some arbitrary point (I believe you suggest the Oort cloud of a star system below) from it. If the power of sunlight burns vampires then obviously the more intense it is the more harm it will cause, just as logically when you're far enough away it does not harm at all (or so little harm vampiric regeneration offsets it healing what little damage it causes leaving it unnoticed).


Scientifically, they are the same thing.

Mystically, they may not be.

We know starlight does not hurt vampires, we know sunlight does, we also know sunlight reflected from nearby celestial bodies does not hurt (Moonlight).

There is nothing indicating distance has anything to do with it, however, that is is "obvious" that more intense sunlight will cause more damage is pure conjecture on you part unless you have something from the books to substanitate it. until then, the damage from sunlight is the same regardless of intensity.


You're trying to find reasons to justify an end result instead of working from what we have towards a reasonable conclusion. A sun is a sun is a sun, you can't argue that 'well it's starlight not sunlight so it's not the same thing' when it is. If the light of a sun harms vampires then it's the same mystically as well as scientifically since again a sun is a sun is a sun. It doesn't stop being a sun because it's off 4 light years away instead of just 93 million miles away (and really by the time you get to Mars and especially farther out the sun itself isn't much beyond a very bright star in the sky from their perspective).

It should be obvious that we DO have evidence that distance matters because again the light from distant stars isn't a problem if distance didn't matter then those suns would very much be a problem yet they aren't. You're therefor trying to present your head canon as if it really were canon (as evidenced by your 'well if you haven't anything in the books that says otherwise then intensity is irrelevant' declaration). If memory serves I've seen somewhere that heavy shade does reduce the damage and again as already noted clearly distance does matter or else the light of distant suns would be a problem at night but it isn't.


Really? I'm not working twords any end at all. I'm just reading the book.


The only thing I need to prove is that sunlight does X damage. and here you go. Vampire Kingdoms Revised page 79. Direct sunlight deals 1d6*10 damage direct to HP to vampires.

That is the only thing i'm trying to justify.
Sunlight does X damage means Sunlight does X damage. location of sun relative to vampire does not appear to be a factor in the equation, except insofar as if they are considered a distant "star" instead it apparently does nothing. I'm not trying to build to that conclusion, that's the conclusion the books give me.

You are the one trying to justify a conclusion that is something different than "sunlight does X damage" to 'sunlight can also do Y damage if there is more intensity"

also that "All stars are suns" which again--sinse vampires can go out at night, clearly something makes sunlight and starlight different.

Page number for intensity having anything to do with it?


No, you're looking at the book and trying to justify your particular head canon for how you think it should be. It is NOT 'sunlight does X' damage as in 'no matter how dim or bright it only does X damage', NOWHERE does it say anything of the sort. What we have is sunlight of X intensity dealing Y damage, you're adding in what you need to make it that the book says something it doesn't, namely that 'intensity doesn't matter so a vampire on the sun would take no more damage than a vampire on Pluto' and 'well there's a cut-off point so that after a point a sun's light is harmless so distant suns aren't a threat at night', even though the logical conclusion should be 'distance from a sun matters, damage drops with distance reaching X damage on a habitable planet like Earth and continuing to drop until no longer harmful' instead of having to create a never mentioned and out of nowhere idea that intensity is irrelevant and it just inexplicably stops being harmful at the Oort cloud (and what about stars that don't have Oort clouds? ).
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

eliakon wrote:<much snipage of thread>
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
That's semantics, stars and suns are the same thing, a sun doesn't somehow not really qualify as a sun because it's really far away. When a parent points to the stars in the sky he tells his kid 'see those stars? They're distant suns like our own'. There's no reason to think that sunlight does the same damage irrespective of distance from a sun to some arbitrary point (I believe you suggest the Oort cloud of a star system below) from it. If the power of sunlight burns vampires then obviously the more intense it is the more harm it will cause, just as logically when you're far enough away it does not harm at all (or so little harm vampiric regeneration offsets it healing what little damage it causes leaving it unnoticed).


Scientifically, they are the same thing.

Mystically, they may not be.

We know starlight does not hurt vampires, we know sunlight does, we also know sunlight reflected from nearby celestial bodies does not hurt (Moonlight).

There is nothing indicating distance has anything to do with it, however, that is is "obvious" that more intense sunlight will cause more damage is pure conjecture on you part unless you have something from the books to substanitate it. until then, the damage from sunlight is the same regardless of intensity.


You're trying to find reasons to justify an end result instead of working from what we have towards a reasonable conclusion. A sun is a sun is a sun, you can't argue that 'well it's starlight not sunlight so it's not the same thing' when it is. If the light of a sun harms vampires then it's the same mystically as well as scientifically since again a sun is a sun is a sun. It doesn't stop being a sun because it's off 4 light years away instead of just 93 million miles away (and really by the time you get to Mars and especially farther out the sun itself isn't much beyond a very bright star in the sky from their perspective).

It should be obvious that we DO have evidence that distance matters because again the light from distant stars isn't a problem if distance didn't matter then those suns would very much be a problem yet they aren't. You're therefor trying to present your head canon as if it really were canon (as evidenced by your 'well if you haven't anything in the books that says otherwise then intensity is irrelevant' declaration). If memory serves I've seen somewhere that heavy shade does reduce the damage and again as already noted clearly distance does matter or else the light of distant suns would be a problem at night but it isn't.

Actually we can demonstrate the factual status of her claims.
Example, we can look at canon and know that moonlight does not harm vampires, even though a reflected sunbeam does. Why? They are both scientificially identical, but one is mystically different.

Next there is a canon spell to produce starlight... which does NOT harm vampires or repel them.

This clearly demonstrates the mystical difference between 'star light', 'sunlight' and 'moonlight' even though scientifically they are all the same thing.

The next problem with the argument that distance reduces damage is that the planets in phaseworld are not all grouped by distance.
You might say "so what" but I would point out that we, canonically, have examples of vampires being in space and a discussion about them. No where is any mention of them getting any special protections by being on farther planets or taking more damage by being on nearer planets. But what we DO have is discussions about the metaphysical issues... like how if the world is in eternal night they can be active... meaning that the weakness to sunlight is, once again, mystical in nature not scientific.
Which is the entire point.
Vampires are supernatural creatures with a mystic vulnerability the claim that we should use a scientific system of quantifying how that vulnerability works is... well counter intuitive at best.


Okay you've some really messed up reasoning going on. Mystical forces come in intensities just like everything else: some are weak, some are strong, some are overpowering. Starlight is still sunlight, it's just sunlight from VERY far away, far enough that it's mystical influences are simply too weak to do anything. It would be quite ridiculous to try and argue that sunlight right up close to the source, like on Mercury, has the same mystical intensity as it does on Earth.

If the phase world setting makes no mention of such meanwhile that by no means even remotely means that intensity is irrelevant, because what you're doing is trying to argue that it should have infinite range when it clearly doesn't and to excuse that while insisting that it deals X damage no matter range is introduce something also not in the book, an arbitrary range limit on how far the sunlight's damage travels from the sun before it *poof* goes from X instantly down to 0. So you're trying to claim that intensity of sunlight is irrelevant and worse by the book yet to justify it you invent very not-by-the-book excuses to support said claims, because you don't want to acknowledge intensity being relevant to the damage (apparently out of some need to reject even the most basic of reasoning as being 'too scientific' as if somehow it's a requirement that there be nothing logical or rational about anything that relates to magic in any fashion which is absurd).

Meanwhile well of COURSE a vampire's not going to have problems on a world in eternal night, there's no sunlight, they aren't going to worry too much about wood on planets were wood doesn't exist either. No different than a vampire doesn't worry about the sun on the night side of a planet, he's got the planet between him and the sunlight.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by eliakon »

Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Really? I'm not working twords any end at all. I'm just reading the book.


The only thing I need to prove is that sunlight does X damage. and here you go. Vampire Kingdoms Revised page 79. Direct sunlight deals 1d6*10 damage direct to HP to vampires.

That is the only thing i'm trying to justify.
Sunlight does X damage means Sunlight does X damage. location of sun relative to vampire does not appear to be a factor in the equation, except insofar as if they are considered a distant "star" instead it apparently does nothing. I'm not trying to build to that conclusion, that's the conclusion the books give me.

You are the one trying to justify a conclusion that is something different than "sunlight does X damage" to 'sunlight can also do Y damage if there is more intensity"

also that "All stars are suns" which again--sinse vampires can go out at night, clearly something makes sunlight and starlight different.

Page number for intensity having anything to do with it?


No, you're looking at the book and trying to justify your particular head canon for how you think it should be. It is NOT 'sunlight does X' damage as in 'no matter how dim or bright it only does X damage', NOWHERE does it say anything of the sort. What we have is sunlight of X intensity dealing Y damage, you're adding in what you need to make it that the book says something it doesn't, namely that 'intensity doesn't matter so a vampire on the sun would take no more damage than a vampire on Pluto' and 'well there's a cut-off point so that after a point a sun's light is harmless so distant suns aren't a threat at night', even though the logical conclusion should be 'distance from a sun matters, damage drops with distance reaching X damage on a habitable planet like Earth and continuing to drop until no longer harmful' instead of having to create a never mentioned and out of nowhere idea that intensity is irrelevant and it just inexplicably stops being harmful at the Oort cloud (and what about stars that don't have Oort clouds? ).

If you want to claim that the sunlight damage is variant then your going to need to point to a variant damage source.
Right now every vampire takes the same damage under sunlight... with no mention made for the star type. And we have a lot of star types and planet distances in the games
Also we have spells like "globe of daylight" and "globe of true daylight" that create daylight... not "daylight equal to a certain star" just "daylight"
There is no 'intensity' to it... by the books something is either daylight or it is not daylight...
It seems that you are the one using a head cannon here...
...as you are saying that there is some sort of unwritten rule that changes the stats of vampires...
...so that the stat which says they take X damage from sunlight doesn't REALLY mean what is written, but actually means "they take this damage under earth normal conditions only, different levels will apply under different conditions, but we didn't actually put this in any book anywhere."
The second sounds a bit like head cannon..
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by eliakon »

Nightmask wrote:Okay you've some really messed up reasoning going on. Mystical forces come in intensities just like everything else: some are weak, some are strong, some are overpowering.

and some just are.

Nightmask wrote:Starlight is still sunlight

source?
Because as I said the game books define it different mystically and your claim that this is not true needs support.

Nightmask wrote:, it's just sunlight from VERY far away, far enough that it's mystical influences are simply too weak to do anything. It would be quite ridiculous to try and argue that sunlight right up close to the source, like on Mercury, has the same mystical intensity as it does on Earth.

Why?
Magic is not science. There is no square/cube law to magic.
Magic energies DO seem to have flat values over vast distances (look at ley line energy for example) if you have a cannon source that claims otherwise though I would be interested.

Nightmask wrote:If the phase world setting makes no mention of such meanwhile that by no means even remotely means that intensity is irrelevant, because what you're doing is trying to argue that it should have infinite range when it clearly doesn't and to excuse that while insisting that it deals X damage no matter range is introduce something also not in the book, an arbitrary range limit on how far the sunlight's damage travels from the sun before it *poof* goes from X instantly down to 0. So you're trying to claim that intensity of sunlight is irrelevant and worse by the book yet to justify it you invent very not-by-the-book excuses to support said claims, because you don't want to acknowledge intensity being relevant to the damage (apparently out of some need to reject even the most basic of reasoning as being 'too scientific' as if somehow it's a requirement that there be nothing logical or rational about anything that relates to magic in any fashion which is absurd).

Your argument here is hard to follow, and contradictory.
But I'll try
First off you claim that even though Phase World does not say anything about vampires taking different levels of damage under different conditions... that they really do it just didn't get published.

Second that some how claiming that what is written (sunlight does X) which is what the book says is not correct but that it really MEANT to say Sunlight does X at Y distance with Z intensity here are the factors to compute the values...

Third that some how the argument that magic does not follow the laws of science is not a valid reason to dismiss something that only exists in physics as a constraint on magic? If you can find a cannon support for the claim that magic is bound by the laws of science then sure (hint I can provide citations that say it is not)... feel free to argue that the laws of science bind magic. Until then I don't see why a law of physics should be considered a valid restriction on magic or the supernatural.

Fourth you are making the false claim that I said that sunlight has infinite range. No one has said that. What has been said is that after a certain point it is not, for the purposes of magic/supernatural 'sunlight' anymore. That is sort of the opposite of infinite range. And no the EM wave didn't change...
But for the same reason that the fusion bomb doesn't hurt a vampire even though that is scientifically producing the same EM radiation as a star because for a few instants you have a stars fusion reaction going (and that reason is that the bomb is not 'sunlight' its just a bomb) science defines things one way and the supernatural defines things another way.
For example... in the supernatural you can create fire. Just fire... fire that exists as a discrete object burning no fuel yet still being flame. That is not possible under science and in fact science would say that any such energy field is, by definition, not fire as it is not burning a fuel...
...but magically it IS fire.
Same here. "Sunlight" and "the EM radiation emitted by a star" are not the same thing...
...which for example is why you can have a Globe of Daylight and a Globe of True Daylight...neither one illuminates more than the other, neither is more or less intense than the other... but one is True Daylight and burns vampires, one is just 'daylight' and holds them at bay. And a third spell that produces light of the exact same color and intensity would do nothing... because that is just light.


Nightmask wrote:Meanwhile well of COURSE a vampire's not going to have problems on a world in eternal night, there's no sunlight, they aren't going to worry too much about wood on planets were wood doesn't exist either. No different than a vampire doesn't worry about the sun on the night side of a planet, he's got the planet between him and the sunlight.

The vampire though should have problems...it should have to sleep during the day right? And if magic is just science then day has to mean day no matter what right?
Or wait... it only has to sleep during the day... hmmm that suggests that maybe... just maybe that the 'day' is not based on time... but the magic of "when the sun is over head"
Odd that.
Perhaps maybe magic is not physics.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Scientifically, they are the same thing.

Mystically, they may not be.

We know starlight does not hurt vampires, we know sunlight does, we also know sunlight reflected from nearby celestial bodies does not hurt (Moonlight).

There is nothing indicating distance has anything to do with it, however, that is is "obvious" that more intense sunlight will cause more damage is pure conjecture on you part unless you have something from the books to substanitate it. until then, the damage from sunlight is the same regardless of intensity.


You're trying to find reasons to justify an end result instead of working from what we have towards a reasonable conclusion. A sun is a sun is a sun, you can't argue that 'well it's starlight not sunlight so it's not the same thing' when it is. If the light of a sun harms vampires then it's the same mystically as well as scientifically since again a sun is a sun is a sun. It doesn't stop being a sun because it's off 4 light years away instead of just 93 million miles away (and really by the time you get to Mars and especially farther out the sun itself isn't much beyond a very bright star in the sky from their perspective).

It should be obvious that we DO have evidence that distance matters because again the light from distant stars isn't a problem if distance didn't matter then those suns would very much be a problem yet they aren't. You're therefor trying to present your head canon as if it really were canon (as evidenced by your 'well if you haven't anything in the books that says otherwise then intensity is irrelevant' declaration). If memory serves I've seen somewhere that heavy shade does reduce the damage and again as already noted clearly distance does matter or else the light of distant suns would be a problem at night but it isn't.


Really? I'm not working twords any end at all. I'm just reading the book.


The only thing I need to prove is that sunlight does X damage. and here you go. Vampire Kingdoms Revised page 79. Direct sunlight deals 1d6*10 damage direct to HP to vampires.

That is the only thing i'm trying to justify.
Sunlight does X damage means Sunlight does X damage. location of sun relative to vampire does not appear to be a factor in the equation, except insofar as if they are considered a distant "star" instead it apparently does nothing. I'm not trying to build to that conclusion, that's the conclusion the books give me.

You are the one trying to justify a conclusion that is something different than "sunlight does X damage" to 'sunlight can also do Y damage if there is more intensity"

also that "All stars are suns" which again--sinse vampires can go out at night, clearly something makes sunlight and starlight different.

Page number for intensity having anything to do with it?


No, you're looking at the book and trying to justify your particular head canon for how you think it should be. It is NOT 'sunlight does X' damage as in 'no matter how dim or bright it only does X damage', NOWHERE does it say anything of the sort. What we have is sunlight of X intensity dealing Y damage, you're adding in what you need to make it that the book says something it doesn't, namely that 'intensity doesn't matter so a vampire on the sun would take no more damage than a vampire on Pluto' and 'well there's a cut-off point so that after a point a sun's light is harmless so distant suns aren't a threat at night', even though the logical conclusion should be 'distance from a sun matters, damage drops with distance reaching X damage on a habitable planet like Earth and continuing to drop until no longer harmful' instead of having to create a never mentioned and out of nowhere idea that intensity is irrelevant and it just inexplicably stops being harmful at the Oort cloud (and what about stars that don't have Oort clouds? ).

I'm actually adding nothing at all, I merely offered a couple theroies as to what might be the difference between a sun and a star. The Oort cloud was a suggested possibility, not a definitive statement. A possibility to debate and no more. I could be wrong on it-but even if I am, it won't change my point. Sunlight does 1d6*10 HP damage to vampires.

You are the one adding things not in cannon. My point is the book says nothing about intensity, so intensity having anything to do with it is you trying to justify your own head canon there. My point is you don't have anything in the book to back it up. Unless you have found that page number...

I mean really, your argument is literally "the book does not say intensity does not matter, therefore it does matter." That is that is a statement you have not proven yet.

My argument is sunlight does 1d6*10 damage per melee round. I cited my source.

Now the burden of proof is on you. You have made a claim, back it up.
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

Let's be civil, folks, or I'll be forced to start blowing people out airlocks... :P
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Really? I'm not working twords any end at all. I'm just reading the book.


The only thing I need to prove is that sunlight does X damage. and here you go. Vampire Kingdoms Revised page 79. Direct sunlight deals 1d6*10 damage direct to HP to vampires.

That is the only thing i'm trying to justify.
Sunlight does X damage means Sunlight does X damage. location of sun relative to vampire does not appear to be a factor in the equation, except insofar as if they are considered a distant "star" instead it apparently does nothing. I'm not trying to build to that conclusion, that's the conclusion the books give me.

You are the one trying to justify a conclusion that is something different than "sunlight does X damage" to 'sunlight can also do Y damage if there is more intensity"

also that "All stars are suns" which again--sinse vampires can go out at night, clearly something makes sunlight and starlight different.

Page number for intensity having anything to do with it?


No, you're looking at the book and trying to justify your particular head canon for how you think it should be. It is NOT 'sunlight does X' damage as in 'no matter how dim or bright it only does X damage', NOWHERE does it say anything of the sort. What we have is sunlight of X intensity dealing Y damage, you're adding in what you need to make it that the book says something it doesn't, namely that 'intensity doesn't matter so a vampire on the sun would take no more damage than a vampire on Pluto' and 'well there's a cut-off point so that after a point a sun's light is harmless so distant suns aren't a threat at night', even though the logical conclusion should be 'distance from a sun matters, damage drops with distance reaching X damage on a habitable planet like Earth and continuing to drop until no longer harmful' instead of having to create a never mentioned and out of nowhere idea that intensity is irrelevant and it just inexplicably stops being harmful at the Oort cloud (and what about stars that don't have Oort clouds? ).

If you want to claim that the sunlight damage is variant then your going to need to point to a variant damage source.
Right now every vampire takes the same damage under sunlight... with no mention made for the star type. And we have a lot of star types and planet distances in the games
Also we have spells like "globe of daylight" and "globe of true daylight" that create daylight... not "daylight equal to a certain star" just "daylight"
There is no 'intensity' to it... by the books something is either daylight or it is not daylight...
It seems that you are the one using a head cannon here...
...as you are saying that there is some sort of unwritten rule that changes the stats of vampires...
...so that the stat which says they take X damage from sunlight doesn't REALLY mean what is written, but actually means "they take this damage under earth normal conditions only, different levels will apply under different conditions, but we didn't actually put this in any book anywhere."
The second sounds a bit like head cannon..


Of course there's an intensity to things, and seriously the head canon's on your end not mine. Everything in the game operates under certain basic asssumptions, one of those is obvious that the Globe spell (which unless they changed it while holding vampires at bay doesn't do any damage to them in spite of being 'true daylight') is creating light effectively equal to the intensity of light as seen on Earth or a similar planet at a suitable distance from its star to have similar intensities. Until now I've never seen anyone try and argue that the spell wasn't based around simulating the same level/intensity of sunlight as seen on the surface of the Earth during a sunny day.

In regards to the rest, don't be slapping your strawmen on me, particularly when you've been trying to argue that even though the books say nothing of the sort that sunlight deals the same damage whether a vampire's on the surface of the sun or sitting on Pluto until at some mysterious, never mentioned, point it suddenly stops dealing damage at all.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by eliakon »

Nightmask wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Really? I'm not working twords any end at all. I'm just reading the book.


The only thing I need to prove is that sunlight does X damage. and here you go. Vampire Kingdoms Revised page 79. Direct sunlight deals 1d6*10 damage direct to HP to vampires.

That is the only thing i'm trying to justify.
Sunlight does X damage means Sunlight does X damage. location of sun relative to vampire does not appear to be a factor in the equation, except insofar as if they are considered a distant "star" instead it apparently does nothing. I'm not trying to build to that conclusion, that's the conclusion the books give me.

You are the one trying to justify a conclusion that is something different than "sunlight does X damage" to 'sunlight can also do Y damage if there is more intensity"

also that "All stars are suns" which again--sinse vampires can go out at night, clearly something makes sunlight and starlight different.

Page number for intensity having anything to do with it?


No, you're looking at the book and trying to justify your particular head canon for how you think it should be. It is NOT 'sunlight does X' damage as in 'no matter how dim or bright it only does X damage', NOWHERE does it say anything of the sort. What we have is sunlight of X intensity dealing Y damage, you're adding in what you need to make it that the book says something it doesn't, namely that 'intensity doesn't matter so a vampire on the sun would take no more damage than a vampire on Pluto' and 'well there's a cut-off point so that after a point a sun's light is harmless so distant suns aren't a threat at night', even though the logical conclusion should be 'distance from a sun matters, damage drops with distance reaching X damage on a habitable planet like Earth and continuing to drop until no longer harmful' instead of having to create a never mentioned and out of nowhere idea that intensity is irrelevant and it just inexplicably stops being harmful at the Oort cloud (and what about stars that don't have Oort clouds? ).

If you want to claim that the sunlight damage is variant then your going to need to point to a variant damage source.
Right now every vampire takes the same damage under sunlight... with no mention made for the star type. And we have a lot of star types and planet distances in the games
Also we have spells like "globe of daylight" and "globe of true daylight" that create daylight... not "daylight equal to a certain star" just "daylight"
There is no 'intensity' to it... by the books something is either daylight or it is not daylight...
It seems that you are the one using a head cannon here...
...as you are saying that there is some sort of unwritten rule that changes the stats of vampires...
...so that the stat which says they take X damage from sunlight doesn't REALLY mean what is written, but actually means "they take this damage under earth normal conditions only, different levels will apply under different conditions, but we didn't actually put this in any book anywhere."
The second sounds a bit like head cannon..


Of course there's an intensity to things, and seriously the head canon's on your end not mine.

Great so if there is this intensity thing spelled out... where is it?
Where can you point to what book and page that has it?
Because right now your saying that the published books are headcannon you realize that yes?
The books themselves say that sunlight does a set amount of damage. No mention of intensity at all. For you to claim that intensity is really involved and is a variable is to imply that the books are not accurate and that your headcanon is more accurate...
...so where is the support.
Simply claiming that you are right and the books are wrong is not support.


Nightmask wrote: Everything in the game operates under certain basic asssumptions, one of those is obvious that the Globe spell (which unless they changed it while holding vampires at bay doesn't do any damage to them in spite of being 'true daylight') is creating light effectively equal to the intensity of light as seen on Earth or a similar planet at a suitable distance from its star to have similar intensities. Until now I've never seen anyone try and argue that the spell wasn't based around simulating the same level/intensity of sunlight as seen on the surface of the Earth during a sunny day.


Um no the spell doesn't simulate the sunlight of Sol III...
...unless we are claiming that every air elemental in the universe just HAPPENS to consider the intensity of sunlight as seen from earth as the cosmic normal... heck as written the spell works the exact same even if it is cast by a being from a twilight world, or a high light world... if your a native of pluto or Jupiter or mercury...all of them get the exact same result because the spell has a description of what it does. That descpriton does not, ever in any place use the words "Earth" "intensity" or "Sol"
Thus the spell is invariant no matter who casts it no matter where it is cast (unless you have a book citation otherwise of course!)
Just like the spell Fireball doesn't change

Nightmask wrote:In regards to the rest, don't be slapping your strawmen on me, particularly when you've been trying to argue that even though the books say nothing of the sort that sunlight deals the same damage whether a vampire's on the surface of the sun or sitting on Pluto until at some mysterious, never mentioned, point it suddenly stops dealing damage at all.

Um the book DOES say that.
The book says "Sunlight does 1d6x10 HP"
There is nothing else in there.
The claim that there is an * that then leads us to a foot note about distance, or intensity, or star size/color or any other variable is on you.
Your making the claim that there is such a thing... so prove it.
Because right now we have proved that the book says "Sunlight does this" and it only says that it does that. It does not say anything else. Thus adding to that description is head canon unless supported.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:Okay you've some really messed up reasoning going on. Mystical forces come in intensities just like everything else: some are weak, some are strong, some are overpowering.


and some just are.


Obviously false, they can't exist without some kind of intensity compared to other forces.

eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:Starlight is still sunlight

source?
Because as I said the game books define it different mystically and your claim that this is not true needs support.


No, the books don't, that's YOUR position but the books themselves don't define it any different. YOU argue that it must be different to fit your fanon idea that sunlight deals x damage to vampires no matter how intense until it just stops dealing damage at some never mentioned cut-off point.

eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:, it's just sunlight from VERY far away, far enough that it's mystical influences are simply too weak to do anything. It would be quite ridiculous to try and argue that sunlight right up close to the source, like on Mercury, has the same mystical intensity as it does on Earth.

Why?
Magic is not science. There is no square/cube law to magic.
Magic energies DO seem to have flat values over vast distances (look at ley line energy for example) if you have a cannon source that claims otherwise though I would be interested.


*laughs* Where does it say that ANYWHERE in the books? In regards to your ley line argument, they function a lot more like rivers so you can step from the river onto the banks and you end up completely out of the river, there wouldn't be a drop-off in a case like that.

Btw magic still has rules and laws to it, vampires have the rule that sunlight harms them since it's a countering force to them, so of COURSE the greater the intensity of that which harms them is going to deal more damage. I mean you DO realize that that IS a part of the rules of magic right? Outside of sparkly vampires and a few other edge cases classic sun-damaged vampires in fiction routinely take less damage from sunlight when it's cloudy/overcast compared to an extremely intense, cloudless sky on the most sunny day of the year. I've never seen any vampire fiction (outside again the sparkly vampire stuff) where a vampire would have the same reaction to sunlight on Mercury as they do on Earth (actually I doubt the sparkly vampire fiction ever puts it out that they could handle the intensity of sunlight on Mercury like they do on the Earth). They all recognize that more intense exposure to sunlight is more damaging (much like how a squirt gun's worth of water dealt far less damage than a deluge in the game), yet you want to argue that again they could be sitting on the sun, the source of this damaging energy and have no more trouble than they'd have on Earth on a sunny day.

eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:If the phase world setting makes no mention of such meanwhile that by no means even remotely means that intensity is irrelevant, because what you're doing is trying to argue that it should have infinite range when it clearly doesn't and to excuse that while insisting that it deals X damage no matter range is introduce something also not in the book, an arbitrary range limit on how far the sunlight's damage travels from the sun before it *poof* goes from X instantly down to 0. So you're trying to claim that intensity of sunlight is irrelevant and worse by the book yet to justify it you invent very not-by-the-book excuses to support said claims, because you don't want to acknowledge intensity being relevant to the damage (apparently out of some need to reject even the most basic of reasoning as being 'too scientific' as if somehow it's a requirement that there be nothing logical or rational about anything that relates to magic in any fashion which is absurd).


Your argument here is hard to follow, and contradictory.
But I'll try
First off you claim that even though Phase World does not say anything about vampires taking different levels of damage under different conditions... that they really do it just didn't get published.

Second that some how claiming that what is written (sunlight does X) which is what the book says is not correct but that it really MEANT to say Sunlight does X at Y distance with Z intensity here are the factors to compute the values...

Third that some how the argument that magic does not follow the laws of science is not a valid reason to dismiss something that only exists in physics as a constraint on magic? If you can find a cannon support for the claim that magic is bound by the laws of science then sure (hint I can provide citations that say it is not)... feel free to argue that the laws of science bind magic. Until then I don't see why a law of physics should be considered a valid restriction on magic or the supernatural.

Fourth you are making the false claim that I said that sunlight has infinite range. No one has said that. What has been said is that after a certain point it is not, for the purposes of magic/supernatural 'sunlight' anymore. That is sort of the opposite of infinite range. And no the EM wave didn't change...
But for the same reason that the fusion bomb doesn't hurt a vampire even though that is scientifically producing the same EM radiation as a star because for a few instants you have a stars fusion reaction going (and that reason is that the bomb is not 'sunlight' its just a bomb) science defines things one way and the supernatural defines things another way.
For example... in the supernatural you can create fire. Just fire... fire that exists as a discrete object burning no fuel yet still being flame. That is not possible under science and in fact science would say that any such energy field is, by definition, not fire as it is not burning a fuel...
...but magically it IS fire.
Same here. "Sunlight" and "the EM radiation emitted by a star" are not the same thing...
...which for example is why you can have a Globe of Daylight and a Globe of True Daylight...neither one illuminates more than the other, neither is more or less intense than the other... but one is True Daylight and burns vampires, one is just 'daylight' and holds them at bay. And a third spell that produces light of the exact same color and intensity would do nothing... because that is just light.


Just so much wrong here it's hard to figure out where to start, probably at the end just because it's easiest. The various spells you list are irrelevant, completely meaningless because the discussion is about the light output from a sun NOT about how well this or that spell simulates it. They have no more value than bringing up the positive chi ability that lets one radiate damaging sunlight or the various gods who can emit vampire-damaging sunlight attacks.

Then there's that strawman trying to claim I said you said sunlight has infinite range as I didn't, I said you've claimed that sunlight deals the same damage whether you're on the sun or on Pluto so that the same damage is dealt irrespective of distance from the sun and intensity until at some arbitrary point it just *poof* goes from X damage down to 0, which is how you try and justify your illogical stance because otherwise a vampire on a world circling Alpha Centauri would get burned by Earth's sunlight at night. You argue 'well it stops at X', even though nowhere do the books suggest anything of the sort occurring, yet to support your claim that sunlight does X damage at any distance from the sun you have to include the non-book arbitrary range limit where it stops dealing damage, going from full damage to zero damage like hitting a wall.

eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:Meanwhile well of COURSE a vampire's not going to have problems on a world in eternal night, there's no sunlight, they aren't going to worry too much about wood on planets where wood doesn't exist either. No different than a vampire doesn't worry about the sun on the night side of a planet, he's got the planet between him and the sunlight.


The vampire though should have problems...it should have to sleep during the day right? And if magic is just science then day has to mean day no matter what right?
Or wait... it only has to sleep during the day... hmmm that suggests that maybe... just maybe that the 'day' is not based on time... but the magic of "when the sun is over head"
Odd that.
Perhaps maybe magic is not physics.


Okay, this just seems to be a bunch of nonsense as it seems to have nothing to it, just a bunch of words strung together without meaning.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

Explosively decompressing the airlock in 5...4...3...
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:Of course there's an intensity to things, and seriously the head canon's on your end not mine.


Great so if there is this intensity thing spelled out... where is it?
Where can you point to what book and page that has it?
Because right now your saying that the published books are headcannon you realize that yes?
The books themselves say that sunlight does a set amount of damage. No mention of intensity at all. For you to claim that intensity is really involved and is a variable is to imply that the books are not accurate and that your headcanon is more accurate...
...so where is the support.
Simply claiming that you are right and the books are wrong is not support.


No I'm saying nothing of the sort so stop with the strawmen. The books are based around things happening on Earth (or a world so like it with regards to things like intensity of sunlight as to make no difference) and all the assumptions in general are centered on that. They don't include redundant text like 'based on the intensity of sunlight hitting the Earth's surface' because that's already assumed, they don't write things around the idea of playing vampires on Mercury or Pluto.

eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote: Everything in the game operates under certain basic asssumptions, one of those is obvious that the Globe spell (which unless they changed it while holding vampires at bay doesn't do any damage to them in spite of being 'true daylight') is creating light effectively equal to the intensity of light as seen on Earth or a similar planet at a suitable distance from its star to have similar intensities. Until now I've never seen anyone try and argue that the spell wasn't based around simulating the same level/intensity of sunlight as seen on the surface of the Earth during a sunny day.


Um no the spell doesn't simulate the sunlight of Sol III...
...unless we are claiming that every air elemental in the universe just HAPPENS to consider the intensity of sunlight as seen from earth as the cosmic normal... heck as written the spell works the exact same even if it is cast by a being from a twilight world, or a high light world... if your a native of pluto or Jupiter or mercury...all of them get the exact same result because the spell has a description of what it does. That descpriton does not, ever in any place use the words "Earth" "intensity" or "Sol"
Thus the spell is invariant no matter who casts it no matter where it is cast (unless you have a book citation otherwise of course!)
Just like the spell Fireball doesn't change


Yes the spell as written has a single effect no matter what, so under what fantasy are you operating that it DOESN'T match sunlight on Earth? When it's quite clear from the text that that's exactly what the spell is duplicating, nowhere is it stated or implied that it simulates sunlight from anywhere else. You seriously do not even remotely have a leg to stand on in trying to attempt to argue that the spell doesn't simulate sunlight as it appears on Earth, trying to do so invalidates everything you're trying to argue when you attempt something so contrary to the books.

eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:In regards to the rest, don't be slapping your strawmen on me, particularly when you've been trying to argue that even though the books say nothing of the sort that sunlight deals the same damage whether a vampire's on the surface of the sun or sitting on Pluto until at some mysterious, never mentioned, point it suddenly stops dealing damage at all.


Um the book DOES say that.
The book says "Sunlight does 1d6x10 HP"
There is nothing else in there.
The claim that there is an * that then leads us to a foot note about distance, or intensity, or star size/color or any other variable is on you.
Your making the claim that there is such a thing... so prove it.
Because right now we have proved that the book says "Sunlight does this" and it only says that it does that. It does not say anything else. Thus adding to that description is head canon unless supported.


So you admit you're adding in head canon that sunlight deals the same damage irrespective of intensity, that a vampire on Pluto would face the same lethal levels of damage as if it were on Earth even when the sun can't even really be distinguished from any of the other stars in the sky. Because you're certainly arguing head canon that sunlight deals the same damage from the sun on out until *poof* it stops dealing damage at all at some unmentioned in the book distance from the sun.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

taalismn wrote:Explosively decompressing the airlock in 5...4...3...


Eh I think I'm done with it all (certainly will try and ignore this thread unless someone else posts). If someone wants to houserule that vampires on Pluto take the same damage as vampires on Earth on the sunny side and can even be on the sun and still take no increased damage they're free to do so. I simply note the books say nothing of the sort and it's not worth it to continue to belabor the point.

I do wonder though after something I said earlier what necromancers would make of dead stars like White Dwarfs or Neutron Stars, can't be much of greater mystical significance than a dead star.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

Nightmask wrote:[

I do wonder though after something I said earlier what necromancers would make of dead stars like White Dwarfs or Neutron Stars, can't be much of greater mystical significance than a dead star.



I'd say, aside from the ambiance, no.... While nearby celestial events and alignments may help determine/signal possible ambient PPE spikes in a planet's environment, an active sun in itself doesn't seem to be a greater source of lifeforce PPE(as opposed to non-life-generated PPE). So I don't think a necromancer would get any more PPE out of a dead star than a living star. However, he might feel more badass confident working near a dying/dead star that he MIGHT appear all the more frightening-powerful for it. But increased/special power? I'm leaning towards no.
Of course, a really nasty necromancer with access to powerful enough technologies/magicks MIGHT wanna have a go at enchanting up dead star matter into some insanely twisted weapon of mass destruction, but that's campaign fodder.
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by eliakon »

Nightmask wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:Of course there's an intensity to things, and seriously the head canon's on your end not mine.


Great so if there is this intensity thing spelled out... where is it?
Where can you point to what book and page that has it?
Because right now your saying that the published books are headcannon you realize that yes?
The books themselves say that sunlight does a set amount of damage. No mention of intensity at all. For you to claim that intensity is really involved and is a variable is to imply that the books are not accurate and that your headcanon is more accurate...
...so where is the support.
Simply claiming that you are right and the books are wrong is not support.


No I'm saying nothing of the sort so stop with the strawmen. The books are based around things happening on Earth (or a world so like it with regards to things like intensity of sunlight as to make no difference) and all the assumptions in general are centered on that. They don't include redundant text like 'based on the intensity of sunlight hitting the Earth's surface' because that's already assumed, they don't write things around the idea of playing vampires on Mercury or Pluto.

I am waiting for you to provide support for this
You keep saying that you are right...
...but your support for that is your claim that you are right and that the book is wrong.
That isn't a strawman btw.

Nightmask wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote: Everything in the game operates under certain basic asssumptions, one of those is obvious that the Globe spell (which unless they changed it while holding vampires at bay doesn't do any damage to them in spite of being 'true daylight') is creating light effectively equal to the intensity of light as seen on Earth or a similar planet at a suitable distance from its star to have similar intensities. Until now I've never seen anyone try and argue that the spell wasn't based around simulating the same level/intensity of sunlight as seen on the surface of the Earth during a sunny day.


Um no the spell doesn't simulate the sunlight of Sol III...
...unless we are claiming that every air elemental in the universe just HAPPENS to consider the intensity of sunlight as seen from earth as the cosmic normal... heck as written the spell works the exact same even if it is cast by a being from a twilight world, or a high light world... if your a native of pluto or Jupiter or mercury...all of them get the exact same result because the spell has a description of what it does. That descpriton does not, ever in any place use the words "Earth" "intensity" or "Sol"
Thus the spell is invariant no matter who casts it no matter where it is cast (unless you have a book citation otherwise of course!)
Just like the spell Fireball doesn't change


Yes the spell as written has a single effect no matter what, so under what fantasy are you operating that it DOESN'T match sunlight on Earth? When it's quite clear from the text that that's exactly what the spell is duplicating, nowhere is it stated or implied that it simulates sunlight from anywhere else. You seriously do not even remotely have a leg to stand on in trying to attempt to argue that the spell doesn't simulate sunlight as it appears on Earth, trying to do so invalidates everything you're trying to argue when you attempt something so contrary to the books.

Its not a fantasy at all.
It creates sunlight. Not "the light of Sol as seen from Earth"
It doesn't duplicate anything else.
No one can get any other kind of light from it.
And there is no other kind of spell.
Thus the spell is not "simulate one specific kind of sunlight at one specific intensity" it is "simulate Sunlight"
Again, unless you have a book quote to counter the written spell description.

Nightmask wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Nightmask wrote:In regards to the rest, don't be slapping your strawmen on me, particularly when you've been trying to argue that even though the books say nothing of the sort that sunlight deals the same damage whether a vampire's on the surface of the sun or sitting on Pluto until at some mysterious, never mentioned, point it suddenly stops dealing damage at all.


Um the book DOES say that.
The book says "Sunlight does 1d6x10 HP"
There is nothing else in there.
The claim that there is an * that then leads us to a foot note about distance, or intensity, or star size/color or any other variable is on you.
Your making the claim that there is such a thing... so prove it.
Because right now we have proved that the book says "Sunlight does this" and it only says that it does that. It does not say anything else. Thus adding to that description is head canon unless supported.


So you admit you're adding in head canon that sunlight deals the same damage irrespective of intensity, that a vampire on Pluto would face the same lethal levels of damage as if it were on Earth even when the sun can't even really be distinguished from any of the other stars in the sky. Because you're certainly arguing head canon that sunlight deals the same damage from the sun on out until *poof* it stops dealing damage at all at some unmentioned in the book distance from the sun.

No I am not adding in anything.
I am pointing to the book as written.
The book says that "sunlight does X"
Period
There is nothing else in the book
Adding anything to that is head canon.
Taking anything away from that is head canon
The book simply says "Sunlight does X"
If you can point to anything in any book that says anything else on the subject then fine...
otherwise claims that the book is not complete and not telling us all the game stats are the definition of head canon.
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
Incriptus
Hero
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 2:01 am
Comment: Hey, relaaaax. Pretend it's a game. Maybe it'll even be fun
Shoot the tubes, Dogmeat!
Location: Washington State

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Incriptus »

I have no legal documents to support this, but the intention of the vampires sun light weakness is purely metaphysical. They are Undead. They are Creatures of Darkness. They are destroyed by any sun that brings an end to darkness and is responsible for life. If the stars in question do neither of those two things then it is irrelevant.
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

Nightmask wrote:
taalismn wrote:Explosively decompressing the airlock in 5...4...3...


Eh I think I'm done with it all (certainly will try and ignore this thread unless someone else posts). If someone wants to houserule that vampires on Pluto take the same damage as vampires on Earth on the sunny side and can even be on the sun and still take no increased damage they're free to do so. I simply note the books say nothing of the sort and it's not worth it to continue to belabor the point.


I do wonder how you can say "the damage on pluto is different from what the books say it is, but I'm not the one making up houserules"



You are substituting written text for something you feel should be "obvious". That is the definition of a houserule
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
Nightmask
Palladin
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nightmask »

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
taalismn wrote:Explosively decompressing the airlock in 5...4...3...


Eh I think I'm done with it all (certainly will try and ignore this thread unless someone else posts). If someone wants to houserule that vampires on Pluto take the same damage as vampires on Earth on the sunny side and can even be on the sun and still take no increased damage they're free to do so. I simply note the books say nothing of the sort and it's not worth it to continue to belabor the point.


I do wonder how you can say "the damage on pluto is different from what the books say it is, but I'm not the one making up houserules"



You are substituting written text for something you feel should be "obvious". That is the definition of a houserule


Fine, I'll waste time with one last comment on this.

The books don't say anything about what damage if any sunlight does on Pluto to a vampire. YOU are house-ruling that the book says sunlight does the same damage on Pluto to a vampire as it does on Earth because the books say nothing of the sort, the books give the damage sunlight deals on the Earth nothing more just like the damage done by falling is based on Earth's gravity, or are you going to argue that because the books don't say otherwise falling damage on Pluto is the same as on Earth as well?. If you don't know where you're looking you can't even really distinguish the light from the sun from the light from every other sun visible in the sky, it's just an extra-bright star.
Fair warning: I consider being called a munchkin a highly offensive slur and do report people when they err in doing so.

'Reality is very disappointing.' - Jonathan Switcher from Mannequin

It's 'canon', not 'cannon'. A cannon is a big gun like on pirate ships, canon is what you mean when referring to something as being contained within one of the books such as how many dice to roll for a stat.
User avatar
Nekira Sudacne
Monk
Posts: 15488
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:22 pm
Comment: The Munchkin Fairy
Location: 2nd Degree Black Belt of Post Fu
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Nekira Sudacne »

Nightmask wrote:
Nekira Sudacne wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
taalismn wrote:Explosively decompressing the airlock in 5...4...3...


Eh I think I'm done with it all (certainly will try and ignore this thread unless someone else posts). If someone wants to houserule that vampires on Pluto take the same damage as vampires on Earth on the sunny side and can even be on the sun and still take no increased damage they're free to do so. I simply note the books say nothing of the sort and it's not worth it to continue to belabor the point.


I do wonder how you can say "the damage on pluto is different from what the books say it is, but I'm not the one making up houserules"



You are substituting written text for something you feel should be "obvious". That is the definition of a houserule


Fine, I'll waste time with one last comment on this.

The books don't say anything about what damage if any sunlight does on Pluto to a vampire.


Well if that's your stance, then saying the damage IS different is just as much a houserule as saying it's the same.

YOU are house-ruling that the book says sunlight does the same damage on Pluto to a vampire as it does on Earth because the books say nothing of the sort


Correct. it says nothing about damage on pluto being different than on earth.

You claim, affirmatively, that damage is different on pluto.

You cannot cite the LACK of a rule as evidence that your houserule is cannon. it only proves you are, in fact, making up a houserule, sinse by definition, it's not the rule the book actually gives.
Sometimes, you're like a beacon of light in the darkness, giving me some hope for humankind. ~ Killer Cyborg

You can have something done good, fast and cheap. If you want it done good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If you want it done fast and cheap it won't be good. If you want something done good and cheap it won't be done fast. ~ Dark Brandon
User avatar
glitterboy2098
Rifts® Trivia Master
Posts: 13319
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 3:37 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by glitterboy2098 »

i would rule that for the mystical nature of sunlight to function, the sun in question would have to be large enough to be easily discernible in the sky (so Saturn and beyond would be unlikely to have any damaging effect, though the tiny faint sun would still govern their sleep cycle.)

also, that the damage is a binary effect, due to its mystical nature.. it either does damage or it does not. regardless of intensity.
Author of Rifts: Deep Frontier (Rifter 70)
Author of Rifts:Scandinavia (current project)
Image
* All fantasy should have a solid base in reality.
* Good sense about trivialities is better than nonsense about things that matter.

-Max Beerbohm
Visit my Website
User avatar
Natasha
Champion
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:26 pm
Comment: Doomed to crumble unless we grow, and strengthen our communication.

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Natasha »

taalismn wrote:Okay, here's a question; we know Palladium vampires melt under the light of our sun, and I presume the same holds true for the more intense sunlight of blue giant stars, but how about red or brown dwarf stars? Is it intensity, UV/IR content that should determine lethality to vampires? Would, for example, a vampire be able to walk around unharmed on Pluto, where the sun shines with about a tenth of the same intensity as on Earth?

Off the top of my head I don't think anybody is going to find it satisfactory to approach this question scientifically.

Intensity is inverse square; if d is the distance from observer and source, then the intensity is proportional to 1/d². Solar irradiance, Watt per meter squared (W/m²), at Earth well over 1k. Pluto, being transneptunian will vary more than any of the 8 planets, but Pluto is on average close to 1.

The two reasons the scientific approach is going to be PITA that come immediately to mind follow.

First, what is "light"? Scientifically, it's electromagnetic radiation. This means that talking into a walkie talkie generates light. Obviously, this is not what is meant by light. Visible light? In that case, you can kill a vampire with a flashlight. You could introduce a house rule for intensity and that probably makes sense if you're dedicated. I consider it to be a lot of work for basically nothing in return, however, it's possible that matching damage to blackbody curves is fun.

Second, if you are in atmosphere then there is a serious question about whether any light is direct. Suppose that it is, where and when you are on the Earth may very well alter your conception of directness of the light. Why are summers warm? It's not because Earth is closer to the Sun; indeed, in the northern hemisphere, Earth is closest to the Sun in January. It's because there is more direct sunlight striking the northern hemisphere because that is the time of year the axial tilt puts the northern hemisphere in more direct sunlight.
User avatar
eliakon
Palladin
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Contact:

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by eliakon »

Natasha wrote:
taalismn wrote:Okay, here's a question; we know Palladium vampires melt under the light of our sun, and I presume the same holds true for the more intense sunlight of blue giant stars, but how about red or brown dwarf stars? Is it intensity, UV/IR content that should determine lethality to vampires? Would, for example, a vampire be able to walk around unharmed on Pluto, where the sun shines with about a tenth of the same intensity as on Earth?

Off the top of my head I don't think anybody is going to find it satisfactory to approach this question scientifically.

Intensity is inverse square; if d is the distance from observer and source, then the intensity is proportional to 1/d². Solar irradiance, Watt per meter squared (W/m²), at Earth well over 1k. Pluto, being transneptunian will vary more than any of the 8 planets, but Pluto is on average close to 1.

The two reasons the scientific approach is going to be PITA that come immediately to mind follow.

First, what is "light"? Scientifically, it's electromagnetic radiation. This means that talking into a walkie talkie generates light. Obviously, this is not what is meant by light. Visible light? In that case, you can kill a vampire with a flashlight. You could introduce a house rule for intensity and that probably makes sense if you're dedicated. I consider it to be a lot of work for basically nothing in return, however, it's possible that matching damage to blackbody curves is fun.

Second, if you are in atmosphere then there is a serious question about whether any light is direct. Suppose that it is, where and when you are on the Earth may very well alter your conception of directness of the light. Why are summers warm? It's not because Earth is closer to the Sun; indeed, in the northern hemisphere, Earth is closest to the Sun in January. It's because there is more direct sunlight striking the northern hemisphere because that is the time of year the axial tilt puts the northern hemisphere in more direct sunlight.

For more fun... don't forget that vampire takes the same damage from direct noonday sun at the equator and the early morning sunlight at a pole...
even though one is 'brighter' than the other.
I would point to Vampire Sourcebook though for why...
page 79 talks about how this is 'tied to the elements' and 'the light of day'
strongly suggesting again, that it is not just any light, but specifically the light of day that harms them.
Or put another way
It is the symbolism that is burning them (just like how a holy symbol works... but only if the bearer thinks its holy)
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

eliakon wrote:[It is the symbolism that is burning them (just like how a holy symbol works... but only if the bearer thinks its holy)


"Burn in the sight of the Great Elvis's rhinestone suit, foul undead!!!" :P
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
User avatar
Axelmania
Knight
Posts: 5523
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by Axelmania »

Nekira Sudacne wrote:The generally accepted definition is the star around which planets and other celestial bodies in system revolve around. This would mean, so long as you are in a solar system with a star, it would effect you. Sinse we know distant stars in the sky do not, then once you are out of it's system, it no longer will

Dat realization that the vampire intelligence Pluto (CB2p99) was probably behind the declassification of Pluto as a planet in an effort to redraw the boudnaries of the solar system so our sun's light could no longer harm vampires there so that he could build a secret outpost there.

Unknown probably made a deal with Brulyx and is amassing Reigners on that icy rock since cold prevents their decomposition, ready to rift them into Earth as needed.
User avatar
taalismn
Priest
Posts: 47909
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:19 pm
Location: Somewhere between Heaven, Hell, and New England

Re: Vampires Under Other Suns

Unread post by taalismn »

Axelmania wrote:[
Dat realization that the vampire intelligence Pluto (CB2p99) was probably behind the declassification of Pluto as a planet in an effort to redraw the boudnaries of the solar system so our sun's light could no longer harm vampires there so that he could build a secret outpost there.

Unknown probably made a deal with Brulyx and is amassing Reigners on that icy rock since cold prevents their decomposition, ready to rift them into Earth as needed.



I like the way you think, even if it means bloodsoaked nightmares for me later.
-------------
"Trouble rather the Tiger in his Lair,
Than the Sage among his Books,
For all the Empires and Kingdoms,
The Armies and Works that you hold Dear,
Are to him but the Playthings of the Moment,
To be turned over with the Flick of a Finger,
And the Turning of a Page"

--------Rudyard Kipling
------------
Post Reply

Return to “Rifts®: Dimension Books”