Board index » SDC Worlds » Nightbane®

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
Unread postPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 12:27 am
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Posts: 10126
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
dreicunan wrote:
<Massive snip>

No beings are simultaneously supernatural beings and creatures of magic. The phrase "supernatural creature" is not the technical term "supernatural being," so those latter quotes don't affect anything.

Point of order. I could have sworn that gods are refered to as both.
I would not rule out something being both... but it would simply be that they are both. It does not seem to be an exclusive state. Just like you can be both French and Blonde. Your hair color has nothing to do with your nationality and your nationality will not determine your hair color.
There are a lot of French people who are NOT blondes, and there are a lot of Blondes who are not French...
...but there are also some small subset of humans who are both blonde and French.

_________________
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."


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 12:44 am
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am
Posts: 801
Axelmania wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
I can direct you to a statement that unequivocally states that Dragons are not supernatural beings:
RUE p. 276.
You continue to demonstrate that you are one of the many people on whom the distinction is lost.

"The distinction between creatures of magic and the supernatural is lost on many people" does not state that dragons are not supernatural, and it does not mean that creatures of magic cannot also be supernatural.

I can write "the distinction between apples and fruits is lost on many people" or "the distinction between insects and winged creatures is lost on many people" but does does not prevent overlap between the 2 things.
You never do miss an opportunity to miss the forest for the trees, do you.

Axelmania wrote:
Pay attention to this:
    "The main difference is that creatures of magic are mortals"

The "main difference" no longer exists. Gargoyles are also mortals, and they are supernatural beings. The 2 definitions you rely on from RUE 276-277 were decanonized by WB31/DB10
No, they weren't "decanonized." Gargoyles are sub-demons. The sub-demon category contains supernatural beings more limited in power, magic, and intelligence. Clearly, one of those differences can be a limited life-span. That some supernatural beings are not immortal does nothing to change that supernatural beings and creatures of magic are separate categories, nor does it allow overlap between them.

Axelmania wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
All of the evidence that you cite for the definition of Supernatural Being having had the definition expanded to include lesser supernatural beings that aren't immortal does nothing to prove that the definition of a creature of magic has changed. It hasn't. Dragons are creatures of magic, not supernatural beings.

The point is that the definition of supernatural being has changed, not that the definition of CoM has changed.
Once again, it hasn't changed.

Axelmania wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
No beings are simultaneously supernatural beings and creatures of magic.

Source? How do we deal with published races who are explicitly both such as dragons, phantasms, phoenixi?
Phoenixi are not explicitly both. They are referred to as a supernatural creature of magic. The term supernatural in Rifts does not automatically mean "supernatural being" as is clearly evident from all the creatures that can get supernatural strength without being a supernatural being. The more common meaning of "above/beyond natural" still exists. They are a creature of magic.

Phantasms are not clearly defined, which is no surprise since the book was written before RUE cleaned up the definitions. Make a ruling (I'd lean toward supernatural being, as they are described as "creatures of magic and insanity".

Dragons are pure creature of magic as of RUE; it goes out of its way to make it clear that Dragons are not like supernatural beings.

Find an example of something defined as a supernatural being and a creature of magic, and you'd have an argument.

Axelmania wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
The phrase "supernatural creature" is not the technical term "supernatural being," so those latter quotes don't affect anything.

You're going to need more ammo if you want to argue that "creatures" are not "beings". If you think there is a meaningful difference, this would be worth its own thread.
No need for another thread, nor for more ammo. "Supernatural being" is a technical term which is defined in RUE. "Supernatural creature" is not.

@Eliakon: If you can find a post-RUE citation of a God being defined that way, please share it with us!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:56 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 3525
dreicunan wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
Pay attention to this:
    "The main difference is that creatures of magic are mortals"
The "main difference" no longer exists.
Gargoyles are also mortals, and they are supernatural beings.
The 2 definitions you rely on from RUE 276-277 were decanonized by WB31/DB10

No, they weren't "decanonized."
Gargoyles are sub-demons.
The sub-demon category contains supernatural beings more limited in power, magic, and intelligence.
Clearly, one of those differences can be a limited life-span.
That some supernatural beings are not immortal does nothing to change that supernatural beings and creatures of magic are separate categories, nor does it allow overlap between them.

RUE 276 says mortality is the main difference between Creatures of Magic and Supernatural Beings.
RUE 277 says all supernatural beings are immortal
DB10/WB31 were published after RUE and affirmed the mortality of supernatural beings (gargoyles).
The aspects of 276/277 which DB10/WB31 contradict are no longer in effect.
There is no longer a main difference between them.

Mortality/Immortality was the only basis for your assumption that they were mutually exclusive categories:
*if you were supernatural, you were always immortal, so you could not be a creature of magic (who are always mortal)
*if you were a creature of magic, you were always mortal, so you could not be a supernatural being (who are always immortal)

The bolded is clearly NOT the case anymore, per WB31/DB10, so there is no longer any basis for the assumption of mutual exclusivity.

Mutual exclusivity has always been an assumption because it was never explicitly written anywhere. Since it was never explicitly written, it requires no explicit contradiction. By removing the logic your assumption is based on (mortality/immortality dichotomy) there is no longer any backing for the assumption.

dreicunan wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
the definition of supernatural being has changed

Once again, it hasn't changed.

It was over-rode by WB10/WB31. Supernatural creatures are not always immortal, gargoyles disprove that. Ergo RUE277's definition is defunct. It no longer applies.

dreicunan wrote:
Phoenixi are not explicitly both.
They are referred to as a supernatural creature of magic.
The term supernatural in Rifts does not automatically mean "supernatural being" as is clearly evident from all the creatures that can get supernatural strength without being a supernatural being.

"strength" and "being" are clearly not synonyms.
"creature" and "being" sound synonymous. It's certainly not clear if they are not.

dreicunan wrote:
Dragons are pure creature of magic as of RUE; it goes out of its way to make it clear that Dragons are not like supernatural beings.

You mean like the imaginary always-immortal version of supernatural being which is no longer canon due to gargoyles?

Dragons are not THAT kind of supernatural being. But they are very much like gargoyles in that they lay eggs and have limited lifespans, so they can be THAT kind of supernatural being.

Any statements about supernatural beings in RUE can be taken with a grain of salt since its very definition (RUE277) was decanonized by DB10/WB31

dreicunan wrote:
Find an example of something defined as a supernatural being and a creature of magic, and you'd have an argument.

Nymphs in Conversion Book Revised. Page 122 "strange supernatural beings" Page 123 "considered creatures of magic".

I can predict you'll try to discredit this by pointing out CBR was 2002 and RUE was 2005.

The basis being, we can no longer trust statements in an older book if a newer book contradicts them?

If that is your basis, I will also point out that DB10 was 2007 and WB31 was 2010. Newer books contradict RUE statements, therefore the RUE statements no longer apply.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:47 pm
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am
Posts: 801
Axelmania wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
Pay attention to this:
    "The main difference is that creatures of magic are mortals"
The "main difference" no longer exists.
Gargoyles are also mortals, and they are supernatural beings.
The 2 definitions you rely on from RUE 276-277 were decanonized by WB31/DB10

No, they weren't "decanonized."
Gargoyles are sub-demons.
The sub-demon category contains supernatural beings more limited in power, magic, and intelligence.
Clearly, one of those differences can be a limited life-span.
That some supernatural beings are not immortal does nothing to change that supernatural beings and creatures of magic are separate categories, nor does it allow overlap between them.

RUE 276 says mortality is the main difference between Creatures of Magic and Supernatural Beings.
RUE 277 says all supernatural beings are immortal
DB10/WB31 were published after RUE and affirmed the mortality of supernatural beings (gargoyles).
The aspects of 276/277 which DB10/WB31 contradict are no longer in effect.
There is no longer a main difference between them.

Mortality/Immortality was the only basis for your assumption that they were mutually exclusive categories:
*if you were supernatural, you were always immortal, so you could not be a creature of magic (who are always mortal)
*if you were a creature of magic, you were always mortal, so you could not be a supernatural being (who are always immortal)

The bolded is clearly NOT the case anymore, per WB31/DB10, so there is no longer any basis for the assumption of mutual exclusivity.

Mutual exclusivity has always been an assumption because it was never explicitly written anywhere. Since it was never explicitly written, it requires no explicit contradiction. By removing the logic your assumption is based on (mortality/immortality dichotomy) there is no longer any backing for the assumption.

dreicunan wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
the definition of supernatural being has changed

Once again, it hasn't changed.

It was over-rode by WB10/WB31. Supernatural creatures are not always immortal, gargoyles disprove that. Ergo RUE277's definition is defunct. It no longer applies.

dreicunan wrote:
Phoenixi are not explicitly both.
They are referred to as a supernatural creature of magic.
The term supernatural in Rifts does not automatically mean "supernatural being" as is clearly evident from all the creatures that can get supernatural strength without being a supernatural being.

"strength" and "being" are clearly not synonyms.
"creature" and "being" sound synonymous. It's certainly not clear if they are not.

dreicunan wrote:
Dragons are pure creature of magic as of RUE; it goes out of its way to make it clear that Dragons are not like supernatural beings.

You mean like the imaginary always-immortal version of supernatural being which is no longer canon due to gargoyles?

Dragons are not THAT kind of supernatural being. But they are very much like gargoyles in that they lay eggs and have limited lifespans, so they can be THAT kind of supernatural being.

Any statements about supernatural beings in RUE can be taken with a grain of salt since its very definition (RUE277) was decanonized by DB10/WB31

dreicunan wrote:
Find an example of something defined as a supernatural being and a creature of magic, and you'd have an argument.

Nymphs in Conversion Book Revised. Page 122 "strange supernatural beings" Page 123 "considered creatures of magic".

I can predict you'll try to discredit this by pointing out CBR was 2002 and RUE was 2005.

The basis being, we can no longer trust statements in an older book if a newer book contradicts them?

If that is your basis, I will also point out that DB10 was 2007 and WB31 was 2010. Newer books contradict RUE statements, therefore the RUE statements no longer apply.

Godlings and demi-gods are explicitly supernatural creatures, and were given lifespans in conversion book 2. Prior to RUE, the distinction wasn't as clear cut. RUE said something. Later things came out which change it. All that proves is that some supernatural beings aren't immortal. It doesn't prove that a supernatural being can be a creature of magic, and definitely doesn't prove that Dragons are now both. You seem to keep forgetting that "main difference" does not mean "ONLY difference."

Now as to that last argument of yours, nice selective quoting! :lol:

That actual quote is that nymphs are "[c]onsidered a creature of magic and nature." There is no defined category "creature of magic and nature." Thus, this quote does not prove that a supernatural being was also considered a "creature of magic."

Feel free to keep looking for a quote that actually backs up your claim!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:59 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Posts: 10126
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
I would like to point out that even if we do assume that there are some things that are both CoM and SB.
It does not follow that Dragons are such.
going back to my thing about "Blonde" and "French"
Just because there are some French Blondes... even if we know that dragons are French that does not demonstrate that they are Blonde.

The only thing that would prove that a dragon (or anything else) is both a CoM and a SB is an explicit statement of that fact for said creature or class of creatures.

_________________
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."


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:22 am
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am
Posts: 801
eliakon wrote:
I would like to point out that even if we do assume that there are some things that are both CoM and SB.
It does not follow that Dragons are such.
going back to my thing about "Blonde" and "French"
Just because there are some French Blondes... even if we know that dragons are French that does not demonstrate that they are Blonde.

The only thing that would prove that a dragon (or anything else) is both a CoM and a SB is an explicit statement of that fact for said creature or class of creatures.

An excellent point as well.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:35 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 3525
dreicunan wrote:
Godlings and demi-gods are explicitly supernatural creatures, and were given lifespans in conversion book 2.

Page 17
    (godling) Average Life Span: 50,000 years, effectively immortal.
    (demigod) Average Life Span: 1,000 to 4,000 years. Some demigods become true immortals.

One interesting thing is Palladium commonly uses "average" lifespan, which tells us nothing about MAXIMUM lifespan.

dreicunan wrote:
Prior to RUE, the distinction wasn't as clear cut.
RUE said something.
Later things came out which change it.
All that proves is that some supernatural beings aren't immortal.

This is my entire point, dragon mortality was the only argument I could see being made against their potential supernaturality.

dreicunan wrote:
It doesn't prove that a supernatural being can be a creature of magic,

Existing examples of beings who are both prove this is possible.

dreicunan wrote:
and definitely doesn't prove that Dragons are now both. You seem to keep forgetting that "main difference" does not mean "ONLY difference."

Another difference is how supernatural beings supposedly vanish into mist and teleport back to their native dimensions with they die. Something which clearly doesn't happen to all supernatural beings in Rifts Earth. Dyvalians and Hades Demons explicitly do that, but that line of thinking doesn't appear consistently.

dreicunan wrote:
That actual quote is that nymphs are "[c]onsidered a creature of magic and nature." There is no defined category "creature of magic and nature." Thus, this quote does not prove that a supernatural being was also considered a "creature of magic."

"Creature of magic and nature" is a sub-group of "creature of magic".

eliakon wrote:
The only thing that would prove that a dragon (or anything else) is both a CoM and a SB is an explicit statement of that fact for said creature or class of creatures.

There are already many quotes referring to dragons as supernatural creatures. People have argued to ignore them on the basis of RUE setting them apart based on a mortality dichotomy. Since the mortality dichotomy is discredited by DB10/WB31, there is no longer a basis for ignoring the many quotes which refer to them as supernatural creatures.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:55 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Posts: 10126
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Axelmania wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
That actual quote is that nymphs are "[c]onsidered a creature of magic and nature." There is no defined category "creature of magic and nature." Thus, this quote does not prove that a supernatural being was also considered a "creature of magic."

"Creature of magic and nature" is a sub-group of "creature of magic".

That is one possible interpretation...
But it doesn't have any canon status I'm afraid.

Axelmania wrote:
eliakon wrote:
The only thing that would prove that a dragon (or anything else) is both a CoM and a SB is an explicit statement of that fact for said creature or class of creatures.

There are already many quotes referring to dragons as supernatural creatures. People have argued to ignore them on the basis of RUE setting them apart based on a mortality dichotomy. Since the mortality dichotomy is discredited by DB10/WB31, there is no longer a basis for ignoring the many quotes which refer to them as supernatural creatures.

Which, even if they WERE a supernatural creature of magic... what then.
What, exactly, would be the result of them being a SCoM that can not be achieved if they are mearly a CoM.

_________________
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."


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:52 am
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am
Posts: 801
Axelmania wrote:
eliakon wrote:
The only thing that would prove that a dragon (or anything else) is both a CoM and a SB is an explicit statement of that fact for said creature or class of creatures.

There are already many quotes referring to dragons as supernatural creatures. People have argued to ignore them on the basis of RUE setting them apart based on a mortality dichotomy. Since the mortality dichotomy is discredited by DB10/WB31, there is no longer a basis for ignoring the many quotes which refer to them as supernatural creatures.

Well, according to your own logic, you need to find a new reference, because WB1 revised, p. 80 was published in 2011, after your cited sources, and it makes all supernatural beings immortal again. Thus, even if the "mortality dichotomy" were needed, it is now back.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:10 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 3525
eliakon wrote:
What, exactly, would be the result of them being a SCoM that can not be achieved if they are mearly a CoM.

Certain things can specify working with one or the other, so something which is both would be subject to things affecting either instead of one.

dreicunan wrote:
Well, according to your own logic, you need to find a new reference, because WB1 revised, p. 80 was published in 2011, after your cited sources, and it makes all supernatural beings immortal again.
Thus, even if the "mortality dichotomy" were needed, it is now back.

If you are referring to "Supernatural beings are immortal and perish only when slain by a third party." since this does not say "all supernatural" I interpret this as "some supernatural", perhaps even "most supernatural".

Murder Wraiths are clearly supernatural beings, for example, and:
    If their P.P.E. is exhausted through starvation, they dissolve in a pile of goo and cease to exist.

Starvation is not "slain by a third party" so there are obviously other ways for supernatural beings to perish. So this statement not applying to ALL supernatural beings is the most logical conclusion.

Heck, vampires are supernatural and can die from deciding to get a sunfan or going swimming in a river. Most supernatural beings would also be capable of suicide, which is not "slain by a third party". So you really should just ignore that silly statement.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:56 am
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am
Posts: 801
Axelmania wrote:
eliakon wrote:
What, exactly, would be the result of them being a SCoM that can not be achieved if they are mearly a CoM.

Certain things can specify working with one or the other, so something which is both would be subject to things affecting either instead of one.

dreicunan wrote:
Well, according to your own logic, you need to find a new reference, because WB1 revised, p. 80 was published in 2011, after your cited sources, and it makes all supernatural beings immortal again.
Thus, even if the "mortality dichotomy" were needed, it is now back.

If you are referring to "Supernatural beings are immortal and perish only when slain by a third party." since this does not say "all supernatural" I interpret this as "some supernatural", perhaps even "most supernatural".

Murder Wraiths are clearly supernatural beings, for example, and:
    If their P.P.E. is exhausted through starvation, they dissolve in a pile of goo and cease to exist.

Starvation is not "slain by a third party" so there are obviously other ways for supernatural beings to perish. So this statement not applying to ALL supernatural beings is the most logical conclusion.

Heck, vampires are supernatural and can die from deciding to get a sunfan or going swimming in a river. Most supernatural beings would also be capable of suicide, which is not "slain by a third party". So you really should just ignore that silly statement.

:lol:
No, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. By your own logic, all the things that you just quoted can no longer happen. You don't get to add in "some" or "most." You have to deal with the text as is. That, or you can admit that your entire argument about RUE being "decanonized" was hogwash from the start and you are wrong about supernatural beings and creatures of magic anyways. Either way, a creature is one or the othrler, not both.


          Top  
 
 
Post new topic Reply to topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group