Invis:Superior: Hostile actions?

[StormSeeker]

Quick question about an "act of aggression or combat":

Would planting/positioning explosives bring you out of invisibility? Would it make a difference if you were setting a timer or using a remote detonator once you get clear? What about placing mines or trip-wire grenades?

[Kagashi]

Quick question about an "act of aggression or combat":

Would planting/positioning explosives bring you out of invisibility? Would it make a difference if you were setting a timer or using a remote detonator once you get clear? What about placing mines or trip-wire grenades?

I rekkon the magic works off of intent. Planting an IED would certainly constitute as an act of aggression, even if the aggression hadnt actually happened yet, turning you visible the moment you planted the bomb. On the other hand, if you accidentally dropped a land mine and a child steps on it, that would not constitute as an act of aggression as there was no ill intent and you would remain invisible. Thats my take anyway.

[Athos]

Would planting/positioning explosives bring you out of invisibility? Would it make a difference if you were setting a timer or using a remote detonator once you get clear? What about placing mines or trip-wire grenades?

I would say no, it would NOT turn you visible. My reasoning is this : if you set the charge on a bridge, and then found out that your target changed routes, you might go and retrieve the charge without ever setting it off. So, placing the charge is different than setting off the charge, and would not cancel the invisibility.

It's a good question, and is definitely a GM decision, but hopefully your GM will let you stay invisible.

Another instance might be you are an invisible forward observer. You are not attacking anyone, but you are coordinating your side's artillery and missile fire. I would also rule that that would NOT bring you out of invisibility since once again, you are not directly attacking anyone.

[Slight001]

"act of aggression or combat" as I see it is intent to do harm to person or property. If you intend to cause damage or bring harm to another then the spell cancels out. Actual results don't matter so much as your intentions.

If you want to engage in hostile actions while being invisible I'd suggest Visibility Simple combined with your favorite tech, spell, psionic methods of achieving the final bits of stealth.

[cornholioprime]

Quick question about an "act of aggression or combat":

Would planting/positioning explosives bring you out of invisibility? Would it make a difference if you were setting a timer or using a remote detonator once you get clear? What about placing mines or trip-wire grenades?

The text behind the "invisibility canceling" spells seems to imply that the magic behind the spell has been granted "omniscience" regarding what you want to do.

In this regard, you would have your invisibility canceled the moment you set those explosives up, whether or not there was a timer, because you established your intent to do harm right at that moment...even if you aren't going to pull the trigger as it were, right away.

NOTE: I agree with the other poster who said that your actions as a Forward Observer shouldn't cause you to lose your invisibility; "watching" is not exactly the same as "ill intent" in that situation because even though you KNOW that your superiors back at Command and Control intend to do harm at some point, it is not you who will be doing the actual harming, nor do you know the precise nature of what form, if any, that harm will take.

[Zer0 Kay]

Quick question about an "act of aggression or combat":

Would planting/positioning explosives bring you out of invisibility? Would it make a difference if you were setting a timer or using a remote detonator once you get clear? What about placing mines or trip-wire grenades?

I rekkon the magic works off of intent. Planting an IED would certainly constitute as an act of aggression, even if the aggression hadnt actually happened yet, turning you visible the moment you planted the bomb. On the other hand, if you accidentally dropped a land mine and a child steps on it, that would not constitute as an act of aggression as there was no ill intent and you would remain invisible. Thats my take anyway.

So your saying I can tell Bob to plant this trash around our new friend to appease him with gifts and then turn Bob invisible so he can go plant the IEDs?

[eliakon]

Quick question about an "act of aggression or combat":

Would planting/positioning explosives bring you out of invisibility? Would it make a difference if you were setting a timer or using a remote detonator once you get clear? What about placing mines or trip-wire grenades?

The text behind the "invisibility canceling" spells seems to imply that the magic behind the spell has been granted "omniscience" regarding what you want to do.

In this regard, you would have your invisibility canceled the moment you set those explosives up, whether or not there was a timer, because you established your intent to do harm right at that moment...even if you aren't going to pull the trigger as it were, right away.

NOTE: I agree with the other poster who said that your actions as a Forward Observer shouldn't cause you to lose your invisibility; "watching" is not exactly the same as "ill intent" in that situation because even though you KNOW that your superiors back at Command and Control intend to do harm at some point, it is not you who will be doing the actual harming, nor do you know the precise nature of what form, if any, that harm will take.

But as soon as you call back "fire on hill 3-17" you would lose it. Since that IS a hostile act. I would say that calling back that there are hostiles on hill 3-17, if you know the response will be an artillery barrage would be good enough as well.

[Zer0 Kay]

Quick question about an "act of aggression or combat":

Would planting/positioning explosives bring you out of invisibility? Would it make a difference if you were setting a timer or using a remote detonator once you get clear? What about placing mines or trip-wire grenades?

The text behind the "invisibility canceling" spells seems to imply that the magic behind the spell has been granted "omniscience" regarding what you want to do.

In this regard, you would have your invisibility canceled the moment you set those explosives up, whether or not there was a timer, because you established your intent to do harm right at that moment...even if you aren't going to pull the trigger as it were, right away.

NOTE: I agree with the other poster who said that your actions as a Forward Observer shouldn't cause you to lose your invisibility; "watching" is not exactly the same as "ill intent" in that situation because even though you KNOW that your superiors back at Command and Control intend to do harm at some point, it is not you who will be doing the actual harming, nor do you know the precise nature of what form, if any, that harm will take.

but a toward observers intent is that of aggression as much as anyone planting explosives as soon as they pick up the phone/radio to call in arty or an airstrike.

So then you can hand Bob a detenator, which requires a key which you have not given him (cuz bob is stupid) and then go plant the explosives your self? You don't know when Bob is going to detonate it never mind the reality that the person with the trigger can do no harm, at all, yet.

[Zer0 Kay]

In one game my GM was literal it had to be an act of hostility. I was in time slip and pulled all the pins of the grenades of my enemies on their bandoleers.

In another I was using I:S and went around pushing the magazine release on the enemies weapons and switching their safety on. Both absolutely non aggressive, yet devastating in combat... Good thing I was a high MD creature just in case my friends missed.

[Incriptus]

I would rule that your hostile action only crosses the threshold when it becomes irreversible. It's not drawing your sword that breaks it, it's swinging it. It's not aiming your rifle, it's firing it. It's not setting your charges, it's detonating it.

[The Beast]

I would rule that your hostile action only crosses the threshold when it becomes irreversible. It's not drawing your sword that breaks it, it's swinging it. It's not aiming your rifle, it's firing it. It's not setting your charges, it's detonating it.

I agree with this.

[Shark_Force]

I would rule that your hostile action only crosses the threshold when it becomes irreversible. It's not drawing your sword that breaks it, it's swinging it. It's not aiming your rifle, it's firing it. It's not setting your charges, it's detonating it.

I agree with this.

same here.

planting a bomb is no different from taking out a rifle, getting comfortable in a secure firing position, and lining up a shot. you don't turn visible from that unless/until you pull the trigger. same with the bomb (oddly enough, this answer would mean that yes... there is indeed a difference between an explosive with a timer and an explosive that is remotely detonated for these purposes).

[Zer0 Kay]

So then would releasing magazines be a hostile action or pressing the safety?

[Zer0 Kay]

What if you were just pressing a button on a device you didn't know was a bomb?

[Kagashi]

Quick question about an "act of aggression or combat":

Would planting/positioning explosives bring you out of invisibility? Would it make a difference if you were setting a timer or using a remote detonator once you get clear? What about placing mines or trip-wire grenades?

I rekkon the magic works off of intent. Planting an IED would certainly constitute as an act of aggression, even if the aggression hadnt actually happened yet, turning you visible the moment you planted the bomb. On the other hand, if you accidentally dropped a land mine and a child steps on it, that would not constitute as an act of aggression as there was no ill intent and you would remain invisible. Thats my take anyway.

So your saying I can tell Bob to plant this trash around our new friend to appease him with gifts and then turn Bob invisible so he can go plant the IEDs?

Not sure I follow the bit about trash. What happens prior to turning invisible is irrelevant. Bob could kill and eat a baby kitten raw, then hammer a kids hand to a table, do the dishes, wrap a gift, THEN cast the spell, and you would still be invisible. But the way I see it is the moment Bob plants the IED, he would turn visible. There is no other intent about planting an IED other than harming somebody. That IED could remain in place for years and not go off, but it is still an act of aggression.

But as soon as you call back "fire on hill 3-17" you would lose it. Since that IS a hostile act. I would say that calling back that there are hostiles on hill 3-17, if you know the response will be an artillery barrage would be good enough as well.

I agree. By calling for fires yourself, you initiate the hostile intent and turn visible. However, reporting enemy troop movements would not cancel the spell. What others do with the information is up to *their* hostile intent.

So then would releasing magazines be a hostile action or pressing the safety?

This is a great combat application for the spell. You would remain invisible IMHO.

What if you were just pressing a button on a device you didn't know was a bomb?

The character would remain invisible as there was no hostile intent.

planting a bomb is no different from taking out a rifle, getting comfortable in a secure firing position, and lining up a shot. you don't turn visible from that unless/until you pull the trigger. same with the bomb (oddly enough, this answer would mean that yes... there is indeed a difference between an explosive with a timer and an explosive that is remotely detonated for these purposes).

Yes. Now that makes a difference because now you have control over when that bomb goes off and who it hits as opposed to a unspecified IED type. The character would remain invisible as opposed to arming and planting a bomb with a pressure plate that anybody can step on. However, the moment the trigger/button is pulled/pushed, the character is now visible because he unleashed his intent on the target.

Here is a good question: What if the character were invisible, stood 50 feet from his enemy, and unleashed a burst from his railgun harmlessly into the ground to cause a distraction to the enemy so his buddies can get into a better position to cause more harm? In this case, id say he remains invisible. Tactically, he still hasn't harmed anybody.

[Zer0 Kay]

Quick question about an "act of aggression or combat":

Would planting/positioning explosives bring you out of invisibility? Would it make a difference if you were setting a timer or using a remote detonator once you get clear? What about placing mines or trip-wire grenades?

I rekkon the magic works off of intent. Planting an IED would certainly constitute as an act of aggression, even if the aggression hadnt actually happened yet, turning you visible the moment you planted the bomb. On the other hand, if you accidentally dropped a land mine and a child steps on it, that would not constitute as an act of aggression as there was no ill intent and you would remain invisible. Thats my take anyway.

So your saying I can tell Bob to plant this trash around our new friend to appease him with gifts and then turn Bob invisible so he can go plant the IEDs?

Not sure I follow the bit about trash. What happens prior to turning invisible is irrelevant. Bob could kill and eat a baby kitten raw, then hammer a kids hand to a table, do the dishes, wrap a gift, THEN cast the spell, and you would still be invisible. But the way I see it is the moment Bob plants the IED, he would turn visible. There is no other intent about planting an IED other than harming somebody. That IED could remain in place for years and not go off, but it is still an act of aggression.

But as soon as you call back "fire on hill 3-17" you would lose it. Since that IS a hostile act. I would say that calling back that there are hostiles on hill 3-17, if you know the response will be an artillery barrage would be good enough as well.

I agree. By calling for fires yourself, you initiate the hostile intent and turn visible. However, reporting enemy troop movements would not cancel the spell. What others do with the information is up to *their* hostile intent.

So then would releasing magazines be a hostile action or pressing the safety?

This is a great combat application for the spell. You would remain invisible IMHO.

What if you were just pressing a button on a device you didn't know was a bomb?

The character would remain invisible as there was no hostile intent.

planting a bomb is no different from taking out a rifle, getting comfortable in a secure firing position, and lining up a shot. you don't turn visible from that unless/until you pull the trigger. same with the bomb (oddly enough, this answer would mean that yes... there is indeed a difference between an explosive with a timer and an explosive that is remotely detonated for these purposes).

Yes. Now that makes a difference because now you have control over when that bomb goes off and who it hits as opposed to a unspecified IED type. The character would remain invisible as opposed to arming and planting a bomb with a pressure plate that anybody can step on. However, the moment the trigger/button is pulled/pushed, the character is now visible because he unleashed his intent on the target.

Here is a good question: What if the character were invisible, stood 50 feet from his enemy, and unleashed a burst from his railgun harmlessly into the ground to cause a distraction to the enemy so his buddies can get into a better position to cause more harm? In this case, id say he remains invisible. Tactically, he still hasn't harmed anybody.

the "trash" you gave bob was an IED. IEDs are normally disguised to look like refuse or anything other than a bomb. But u already gave your opinion, Bob wouldn't know so he wouldn't become visible.

[eliakon]

I would rule that your hostile action only crosses the threshold when it becomes irreversible. It's not drawing your sword that breaks it, it's swinging it. It's not aiming your rifle, it's firing it. It's not setting your charges, it's detonating it.

I agree with this.

same here.

planting a bomb is no different from taking out a rifle, getting comfortable in a secure firing position, and lining up a shot. you don't turn visible from that unless/until you pull the trigger. same with the bomb (oddly enough, this answer would mean that yes... there is indeed a difference between an explosive with a timer and an explosive that is remotely detonated for these purposes).

I would argue that there IS a huge difference. This is not "make an attack" its "Hostile act"
When you pull out your rifle and line up that shot *I* would drop your invisibility. Your taking an act that is overtly hostile. The intent of the act is to cause harm. If you want to line up shots invisibly, go with a different spell.

[Shark_Force]

I would rule that your hostile action only crosses the threshold when it becomes irreversible. It's not drawing your sword that breaks it, it's swinging it. It's not aiming your rifle, it's firing it. It's not setting your charges, it's detonating it.

I agree with this.

same here.

planting a bomb is no different from taking out a rifle, getting comfortable in a secure firing position, and lining up a shot. you don't turn visible from that unless/until you pull the trigger. same with the bomb (oddly enough, this answer would mean that yes... there is indeed a difference between an explosive with a timer and an explosive that is remotely detonated for these purposes).

I would argue that there IS a huge difference. This is not "make an attack" its "Hostile act"
When you pull out your rifle and line up that shot *I* would drop your invisibility. Your taking an act that is overtly hostile. The intent of the act is to cause harm. If you want to line up shots invisibly, go with a different spell.

there is nothing hostile about setting up a firing position. people do this sort of thing at firing ranges all the time. the hostile act is shooting someone.

your interpretation leads to nonsense like "oh, you were walking towards an enemy and were prepared to defend your team if attacked? hostile act! you lose invisibility."

[Athos]

All this talk about intent is pretty silly, since the spell does not mention intent. The exact wording in the Book of Magic is this :

"The magic is broken only if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks."

A hostile move might be pushing someone off a cliff; but aiming a weapon, or walking towards an enemy? How on earth can that be considered a hostile move? Unless the GM thinks he is omniscient and knows what the character is going to do next.

This one is going to be a GM by GM decision, but as I said earlier, I don't really see how you would turn visible by planting an explosive since you haven't attacked at that point, and you have not committed an irreversibly hostile action.

[Zer0 Kay]

All this talk about intent is pretty silly, since the spell does not mention intent. The exact wording in the Book of Magic is this :

"The magic is broken only if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks."

A hostile move might be pushing someone off a cliff; but aiming a weapon, or walking towards an enemy? How on earth can that be considered a hostile move? Unless the GM thinks he is omniscient and knows what the character is going to do next.

This one is going to be a GM by GM decision, but as I said earlier, I don't really see how you would turn visible by planting an explosive since you haven't attacked at that point, and you have not committed an irreversibly hostile action.

Wow so if an angry person points a gun at you, you don't feel it's a hostile action? If your held by terrorist and they're putting C4 on a vest they put on you you don't think it's hostile? How bout your on your knees and a terrorist is talking into a camera with you in the background. You can't understand what he is saying but he keeps waving a sword at you and making the cutting sign across his neck. Still don't feel the hostility?

[Athos]

All this talk about intent is pretty silly, since the spell does not mention intent. The exact wording in the Book of Magic is this :

"The magic is broken only if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks."

A hostile move might be pushing someone off a cliff; but aiming a weapon, or walking towards an enemy? How on earth can that be considered a hostile move? Unless the GM thinks he is omniscient and knows what the character is going to do next.

This one is going to be a GM by GM decision, but as I said earlier, I don't really see how you would turn visible by planting an explosive since you haven't attacked at that point, and you have not committed an irreversibly hostile action.

Wow so if an angry person points a gun at you, you don't feel it's a hostile action? If your held by terrorist and they're putting C4 on a vest they put on you you don't think it's hostile? How bout your on your knees and a terrorist is talking into a camera with you in the background. You can't understand what he is saying but he keeps waving a sword at you and making the cutting sign across his neck. Still don't feel the hostility?

Pulling the trigger is a hostile action. It doesn't say in the spell, that you are threatening or scaring or intimidating or whatever, it says you make a hostile move or combat action. It is pretty clear.

[eliakon]

All this talk about intent is pretty silly, since the spell does not mention intent. The exact wording in the Book of Magic is this :

"The magic is broken only if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks."

A hostile move might be pushing someone off a cliff; but aiming a weapon, or walking towards an enemy? How on earth can that be considered a hostile move? Unless the GM thinks he is omniscient and knows what the character is going to do next.

This one is going to be a GM by GM decision, but as I said earlier, I don't really see how you would turn visible by planting an explosive since you haven't attacked at that point, and you have not committed an irreversibly hostile action.

MY take on this is
hostile move or engages in combat/attacks. That or is critical. A hostile move cant simply be a subset of attacking, since its an or. This, to me, means that Hostile moves are separate from combat, and attacking. So you can be hostile with out attacking some one. This is where the "GM is going to have to make some calls" nature of Palladium comes into play. But I would say that yes, if an act is intended to be harmful, or has the reasonable expectation of causing harm that it breaks invisibility.
Reconnaissance isn't harmful, you can even sneak behind a person you intend to kill. But when you pull out your weapon it breaks, you don't have to stab them, its good enough that your intent is hostile (I intend to kill you, and thus I am doing X....a hostile act).
Yes its going to be a grey area, Yes it is going to need a GM to make rulings. That's how the Palladium system is set up though so I don't see a problem with that.

[Shark_Force]

again, if sneaking up on someone with the intent to kill them is not hostile, how is drawing a weapon more hostile?

if i draw my weapon a second after the spell is cast so that i can be prepared in the event of a fight breaking out, does that break invisibility too?

if the spell can sense that i'm drawing my weapon for a "hostile move", why can't it sense that i'm walking for a "hostile move" when i sneak behind someone.

how about if i'm an expert martial artist and i plan on sneaking behind someone and killing them with my bare hands. does that count as a hostile move when i start sneaking? does it count as a hostile move any time i take my hands out of my pockets? or does it count as a hostile move when i make the actual attack?

why can the spell somehow sense my hostility with some things that are preparatory to fighting or killing, but not others, when neither necessarily leads to fighting. i could be setting up a firing position because i want to be ready in case something happens. i could be drawing a weapon because i'd much rather be ready to parry a vibro-sword with my MDC tonfa than use my bare SDC hands.

[Zer0 Kay]

I find it funny they use the term hostile. Isn't the hostility of a person, action or event determined by the observer/target of said person, action action or event? It is a poor choice of words.

[RiftJunkie]

Every time I read the description for Invis Super, I get the feeling that it is ONLY for sneaking around/spying. Any intent to do harm (at least in my mind) means the mere thought of squeezing a trigger, drawing a sword, move to choke someone in their sleep, etc. WILL cancel Invis Super.

Much cheaper to cast Aura of Death and then Invis Simple. That gets you what you want for A LOT LESS PPE.

[Killer Cyborg]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

[RiftJunkie]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

My apologies, my bad. I'm confusing Invis Super with Psionic Invis.
But I still think Aura of Death and Invis Simple is a better deal because you can still attack.

[Shark_Force]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

My apologies, my bad. I'm confusing Invis Super with Psionic Invis.
But I still think Aura of Death and Invis Simple is a better deal because you can still attack.

superior invisibility also makes you silent and not leave any tracks iirc. also makes you invisible to all sensors, not just thermo.
yes, it's very limited in what it lets you do, but superior invisibility really does offer quite a bit.

[eliakon]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

See that's where I disagree. I would say that pointing the weapon, and setting the explosive device are inherently hostile. But I forsee this as going around in circles forever since, like many things in Palladium, its a judgment call for the GM/group.

[Killer Cyborg]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

See that's where I disagree. I would say that pointing the weapon, and setting the explosive device are inherently hostile. But I forsee this as going around in circles forever since, like many things in Palladium, its a judgment call for the GM/group.

What specifically about pointing a gun at somebody is hostile?

[eliakon]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

See that's where I disagree. I would say that pointing the weapon, and setting the explosive device are inherently hostile. But I forsee this as going around in circles forever since, like many things in Palladium, its a judgment call for the GM/group.

What specifically about pointing a gun at somebody is hostile?

I define hostile as 'an action that is intended to cause harm to another' (note its harm, not kill, not wound, harm)
When we say that "he was hostile" we don't mean that he had to shoot you, he could have been rude, he could have been threatening, he could have done things to make a person nervous....hostile does not mean 'attack with intent to kill'

[StormSeeker]

Would sleeping with the CS commander's wife count as hostile?

[Zer0 Kay]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

See that's where I disagree. I would say that pointing the weapon, and setting the explosive device are inherently hostile. But I forsee this as going around in circles forever since, like many things in Palladium, its a judgment call for the GM/group.

What specifically about pointing a gun at somebody is hostile?

I define hostile as 'an action that is intended to cause harm to another' (note its harm, not kill, not wound, harm)
When we say that "he was hostile" we don't mean that he had to shoot you, he could have been rude, he could have been threatening, he could have done things to make a person nervous....hostile does not mean 'attack with intent to kill'

yup... At least for the def of hostile.

I simply don't use that part.

[Zer0 Kay]

Would sleeping with the CS commander's wife count as hostile?

two questions.

1. Are you doing it to **** him off or is she just that hot you don't care?
2. Why are you using invis:s, does she like the added taboo of a major user plus... Ah, never mind the invisible man effect.

[Incriptus]

MY take on this is
hostile move or engages in combat/attacks.

And I think that is a very fair way to rule it as well. Some versions of the spell (My HU2) doesn't have the hostile move qualifer at all. So there is a good chance that the "spirit" of the text is to make the spell purely for Sneaking / Stealing and should never be used offensively. However I like to think it's maximum fun that invisiblity should be good for one attack. Thats why I go with my irreversible qualifier.

Yes it is going to need a GM to make rulings. That's how the Palladium system is set up though so I don't see a problem with that.

Exactililacily

[Killer Cyborg]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

See that's where I disagree. I would say that pointing the weapon, and setting the explosive device are inherently hostile. But I forsee this as going around in circles forever since, like many things in Palladium, its a judgment call for the GM/group.

What specifically about pointing a gun at somebody is hostile?

I define hostile as 'an action that is intended to cause harm to another' (note its harm, not kill, not wound, harm)
When we say that "he was hostile" we don't mean that he had to shoot you, he could have been rude, he could have been threatening, he could have done things to make a person nervous....hostile does not mean 'attack with intent to kill'

Do you think that it's harmful to point a gun at somebody?
How?

[The Beast]

I find it funny they use the term hostile. Isn't the hostility of a person, action or event determined by the observer/target of said person, action action or event? It is a poor choice of words.

Pretty much.

[Kagashi]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

See that's where I disagree. I would say that pointing the weapon, and setting the explosive device are inherently hostile. But I forsee this as going around in circles forever since, like many things in Palladium, its a judgment call for the GM/group.

What specifically about pointing a gun at somebody is hostile?

I define hostile as 'an action that is intended to cause harm to another' (note its harm, not kill, not wound, harm)
When we say that "he was hostile" we don't mean that he had to shoot you, he could have been rude, he could have been threatening, he could have done things to make a person nervous....hostile does not mean 'attack with intent to kill'

Do you think that it's harmful to point a gun at somebody?
How?

Really?

[flatline]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

Here's my take:

Any action that intentionally puts someone at increased risk (even if they don't know you're doing it) is hostile.

For example:
- aiming a weapon at them or positioning yourself advantageously to make an attack
- placing explosives on or near them
- planting a tracking device in their clothing
- tricking or forcing them to abandon cover

A good rule of thumb is that if they knew you were doing it and understood why you were doing it, would they feel threatened? If yes, then it's hostile.

You can, of course, take this too far, so you should probably limit "hostile actions" to to actions that could promote harm in the next couple of minutes rather than leaving it open ended. Racing back to base with information that could harm the enemy would probably not be considered hostile, but radioing that same information back to enable an immediate attack on the enemy would be hostile.

But it's an awful mechanic since it is so subjective. In my own game, I totally changed I:S to remove this issue. In my game, I:S is effective across the entire EM spectrum, but nothing else.

--flatline

[Athos]

Do you think that it's harmful to point a gun at somebody?
How?

Really?

You mean, you didn't know that pointing a gun at someone kills them or at the very least maims them?

Come on man, pointing a gun is obviously not harmful in and of itself.

As long as the GM holds monsters and NPCs to the same standard as PCs, I am not sure why it matters this much.

[Shark_Force]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

Here's my take:

Any action that intentionally puts someone at increased risk (even if they don't know you're doing it) is hostile.

For example:
- aiming a weapon at them or positioning yourself advantageously to make an attack
- placing explosives on or near them
- planting a tracking device in their clothing
- tricking or forcing them to abandon cover

A good rule of thumb is that if they knew you were doing it and understood why you were doing it, would they feel threatened? If yes, then it's hostile.

You can, of course, take this too far, so you should probably limit "hostile actions" to to actions that could promote harm in the next couple of minutes rather than leaving it open ended. Racing back to base with information that could harm the enemy would probably not be considered hostile, but radioing that same information back to enable an immediate attack on the enemy would be hostile.

[snip]

--flatline

and again, this interpretation leads to you becoming visible as the result of walking somewhere. or looking at something. or simply being near something in the first place. or talking with no intent to share information, since that could increase someone's risk by startling them, which could lead to increased risk of an accident. or being in a physical location where someone could run into you and hurt themselves as a result.

increased risk of harm to someone, somewhere, can come from almost any action (or even from inaction). based on this description, the act of becoming invisible is likely to be a hostile act, and would immediately cancel the spell.

[flatline]

A "hostile action" means taking an action that is hostile.
Thinking isn't an action in this context.
Neither is pointing a weapon at somebody, nor setting an explosive device on somebody.

It's only when you actually shoot somebody, or detonate that bomb (or set a timer, perhaps) that you've taken a hostile action.

Here's my take:

Any action that intentionally puts someone at increased risk (even if they don't know you're doing it) is hostile.

For example:
- aiming a weapon at them or positioning yourself advantageously to make an attack
- placing explosives on or near them
- planting a tracking device in their clothing
- tricking or forcing them to abandon cover

A good rule of thumb is that if they knew you were doing it and understood why you were doing it, would they feel threatened? If yes, then it's hostile.

You can, of course, take this too far, so you should probably limit "hostile actions" to to actions that could promote harm in the next couple of minutes rather than leaving it open ended. Racing back to base with information that could harm the enemy would probably not be considered hostile, but radioing that same information back to enable an immediate attack on the enemy would be hostile.

[snip]

--flatline

and again, this interpretation leads to you becoming visible as the result of walking somewhere. or looking at something. or simply being near something in the first place. or talking with no intent to share information, since that could increase someone's risk by startling them, which could lead to increased risk of an accident. or being in a physical location where someone could run into you and hurt themselves as a result.

increased risk of harm to someone, somewhere, can come from almost any action (or even from inaction). based on this description, the act of becoming invisible is likely to be a hostile act, and would immediately cancel the spell.

I don't disagree which is why my house rules are totally different from the spell description.

--flatline

[Zer0 Kay]

Do you think that it's harmful to point a gun at somebody?
How?

Really?

You mean, you didn't know that pointing a gun at someone kills them or at the very least maims them?

Come on man, pointing a gun is obviously not harmful in and of itself.

As long as the GM holds monsters and NPCs to the same standard as PCs, I am not sure why it matters this much.

Pretty sure he means the irratated sarcastic really. Because while it isn't harmful it is no matter what, hostile. The MiGs and Bear that were turned back by US and Canadian fighters last week or the week before were performing an aggressive act of hostility, not violence not harm, HOSTILITY.

Since you guys seem to be having a problem here is the definition

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of an enemy: hostile forces; hostile acts.

2. Feeling or showing enmity or ill will; antagonistic: a hostile remark.

3. Unfavorable to health or well-being; inhospitable or adverse: a hostile climate.

n.
1. An antagonistic person or thing.

2. An enemy in warfare.

According to 1. If you simply move and your an enemy of the person it would be a hostile movement.
2. Pointing a gun at someone doesn't show good will and could be seen as antagonistic.
3. Even my use of I:s to drop magazines and turn safeties on could be consideredunfavorable to their well-being.

So... Lets just agree that hostile being too vague should be ignored
BTW your facetious response to his "really" would also be hostile as a reader could take it as antagonistic... Yup your not invisible any more.

[Killer Cyborg]

So, how exactly is it "hostile" to point a gun at somebody?

[Zer0 Kay]

So, how exactly is it "hostile" to point a gun at somebody?

If the person your pointing it at was taught never to point a gun at someone unless you intend to use it, would interpret your action as hostile.

Someone doesn't stop when a cop draws down on them because they think the cop is just pointing at them.

It isn't a cardboard box with wheels KC.

Hostile is a poor choice of word, it is subjective on the part of the target.
If it's not and its based on the invisible person, then it's broke especially if you put it on bob the crazy who's new favorite game is mystery knife sheath, he can tell his friends like it a lot cuz they scream a lot and leak red happy fluid before they go to sleep.

[Killer Cyborg]

So, how exactly is it "hostile" to point a gun at somebody?

If the person your pointing it at was taught never to point a gun at someone unless you intend to use it, would interpret your action as hostile.

"Somebody might interpret it as hostile" is NOT the same as "hostile."

Especially, I think, when the other person cannot see what you're doing.

You're not offending anybody by pointing a gun at them, because they don't know that you're there.
Not that I think for a moment that Palladium meant to include "offending sensibilities" in with their use of the word "hostile."

Someone doesn't stop when a cop draws down on them because they think the cop is just pointing at them.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
But a better analogy would be comparing it to a situation where they don't even see the cop pointing the weapon at them.

Hostile is a poor choice of word, it is subjective on the part of the target.

The target's feelings are irrelevant. They're not even in the equation until they can see what the invisible person is doing.

If it's not and its based on the invisible person, then it's broke especially if you put it on bob the crazy who's new favorite game is mystery knife sheath, he can tell his friends like it a lot cuz they scream a lot and leak red happy fluid before they go to sleep.

I don't think it's based on the invisible person either. It's based on whether or not something is ACTUALLY hostile.
In game terms, that's up to the GM and/or the players to argue out the specifics.
Just like Impervious to Energy isn't affected by whether Bob The Crazy thinks that he's shooting water blasts out of his ion cannon.

RUE 213 describes it as:
The magic is broken only if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks.

But it's also described later as:
an act of aggression or combat

It's pretty clear in context that Palladium seems to be using "hostile" and "aggression" as synonyms.
Here's the definition of "Aggression":
- angry or violent behavior or feelings
- hostile action against another country, government, etc.

I think that the overall context is pretty clear that Palladium is NOT talking about having violent feelings, but rather having violent behavior.
That's why they're always pairing their terms ("hostile" and "aggression") with "combat" or "attack."

Pointing a gun at somebody isn't inherently hostile.
Even going with the definitions of "hostile" or "aggression" that focus on feelings, it isn't necessarily hostile or aggressive there either.
It's just pointing a weapon at a target.
In the case we're discussing, it's not going to offend anybody, because nobody can see it. You're not doing it in order to hurt somebody's feelings, and nobody's feelings are hurt by it.
It's only when you pull the trigger that it becomes a hostile act.

Instead of just looking at the definition for "hostile" and going with a conglomeration of the definitions, look at the intent of the spell.
Does anybody here truly believe that the spell was meant to end the moment you flip somebody the bird? Or the moment you insult or mock somebody?
I hope not, because being able to taunt your enemies while invisible is one of the key tropes to that power.
Bilbo did it.
The Invisible Man did it.
Buffy did it.
Pretty much any time anybody in any story is invisible, being able to taunt the enemy is something that the invisible person does.
So who here really believes that Palladium meant to end the spell any time that very common event happens?
With a 7th level spell?

In any case, we all know where Palladium came up with this spell. We all know that they got it from D&D. It's just the Rifts version of a D&D spell.
We know that, because D&D was the first time anybody had an invisibility spell END when the person attacked somebody.
(Or, at the very least, they were the first popular game/setting/whatever to include that balancing feature)
And in D&D, the invisibility ends the moment AFTER that first attack, not the moment BEFORE it.
Unless somebody wants to argue that Palladium copied a D&D spell, but changed this one effect without doing anything to highlight the change...?

Seriously, I don't see why we're arguing about this.
It might not be a cardboard box on wheels, but it's pretty close.
The intent of the spell is obvious. Don't let semantic hang-ups overwhelm basic logic.

[eliakon]

So, how exactly is it "hostile" to point a gun at somebody?

If the person your pointing it at was taught never to point a gun at someone unless you intend to use it, would interpret your action as hostile.

"Somebody might interpret it as hostile" is NOT the same as "hostile."

SO what we are saying here is that semantics have no place, and that there is no values judgment to be used. Only absolute terms?
I think that we HAVE to use semantics, we are going to have to make subjective decisions on 'hostility'

Especially, I think, when the other person cannot see what you're doing.

You're not offending anybody by pointing a gun at them, because they don't know that you're there.
Not that I think for a moment that Palladium meant to include "offending sensibilities" in with their use of the word "hostile."

Its not offending that's the issue, its the fact that what your doing is inherently 'hostile' its MEANT to be harmful.

RUE 213 describes it as:
The magic is broken only if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks.

But it's also described later as:
an act of aggression or combat

It's pretty clear in context that Palladium seems to be using "hostile" and "aggression" as synonyms.

Not quite. It just means that there are now THREE things that break it. With out something specifically stating that Hostile = Aggression then you cant assume that Aggression is not your combat portion, and Hostile is still something else.

Here's the definition of "Aggression":
- angry or violent behavior or feelings
- hostile action against another country, government, etc.

And now we have come back full circle....what is a hostile action?

I think that the overall context is pretty clear that Palladium is NOT talking about having violent feelings, but rather having violent behavior.
That's why they're always pairing their terms ("hostile" and "aggression") with "combat" or "attack."

Pointing a gun at somebody isn't inherently hostile.
Even going with the definitions of "hostile" or "aggression" that focus on feelings, it isn't necessarily hostile or aggressive there either.
It's just pointing a weapon at a target.

And THAT is EXACTLY why its hostile. Your wording says it all "pointing a weapon at a target." You are pointing it at something with the INTENTION of shooting it. By doing it you are inherently doing something that you KNOW will lead to its harm, RIGHT NOW. Your thought 'its a target' and your act "I am target locking" have a purpose "to shoot the target" Its hostile.

In the case we're discussing, it's not going to offend anybody, because nobody can see it. You're not doing it in order to hurt somebody's feelings, and nobody's feelings are hurt by it.
It's only when you pull the trigger that it becomes a hostile act.

Its when you pull the trigger that its a combat attack. Its Hostile before that. Which is why they used the "or" as the conjunction and not an "and"

Instead of just looking at the definition for "hostile" and going with a conglomeration of the definitions, look at the intent of the spell.
Does anybody here truly believe that the spell was meant to end the moment you flip somebody the bird? Or the moment you insult or mock somebody?

False premise. This is not about insulting its about trying to harm them, there is a key difference.

I hope not, because being able to taunt your enemies while invisible is one of the key tropes to that power

Again false premise this is not a discussion about the theoretical concept of invisibility, but a specific implementation of it in this game.

Bilbo did it.
The Invisible Man did it.
Buffy did it.
Pretty much any time anybody in any story is invisible, being able to taunt the enemy is something that the invisible person does.

Interesting, but pointless side lines. They are totally irrelivvent. This is not about those events, they did not use Palladiums invisibility superior, so they obviously were not bound by its limits.

So who here really believes that Palladium meant to end the spell any time that very common event happens?
With a 7th level spell?

Again your taking random non-related information and trying to shoehorn it into the discussion. I am pretty sure that's defined as a 'logical fallacy'

In any case, we all know where Palladium came up with this spell. We all know that they got it from D&D. It's just the Rifts version of a D&D spell.
We know that, because D&D was the first time anybody had an invisibility spell END when the person attacked somebody.
(Or, at the very least, they were the first popular game/setting/whatever to include that balancing feature)
And in D&D, the invisibility ends the moment AFTER that first attack, not the moment BEFORE it.
Unless somebody wants to argue that Palladium copied a D&D spell, but changed this one effect without doing anything to highlight the change...?

Okay, I will make the argument. Its a pretty "duh" argument. Open your PF1 book. Look at the spells. Hrmm, wow interesting I see magic that was INSPIRED by AD&D, but its not cut and paste. Its ALL homebrew changes. They changed stuff EVERYWHERE. So the argument that the rules of another game are some how relevant to this one is ludicrous. They have NOTHING to do with this one. Other than being an inspiration for the game. They obviously changed the spell to match their play style (In AD&D for instance you leave tracks....) And as for your 'highlight the change'
1) why would they have to say "this spell is different from some other guys game in the following ways?" Its in THEIR RULE BOOK use their rules
2) They did though "..A hostile act...."

Seriously, I don't see why we're arguing about this.
It might not be a cardboard box on wheels, but it's pretty close.
The intent of the spell is obvious. Don't let semantic hang-ups overwhelm basic logic.

Because your making a semantic hang-up (hostile doesn't mean hostile it just means attacking) AND your throwing logic out the window (Or =/= And is a good place to start on logic...)

[Shark_Force]

as i've already said, the "hostile act" meaning "anything that does or could lead to harm of any type" causes invisibility superior to end as soon as you cast it (if nothing else, your body is essentially in a constant state of warfare with all sorts of foreign agents that have managed to get in, not to mention who knows how many bacteria and such that aren't particularly foreign).

since the spell includes rules that reflect lasting more than 0 seconds, the only conclusion is that the spell was not written with the intent to that it stop working as soon as something you do could potentially result in bad things happening to other people. otherwise the spell description would be something to the effect of:

"this spell is really just a massive troll, it does nothing except expend your PPE and draw the attention of any psi-stalkers or dog boys that happen to be nearby at a time when what you really desperately wanted was to avoid being noticed".

[eliakon]

as i've already said, the "hostile act" meaning "anything that does or could lead to harm of any type" causes invisibility superior to end as soon as you cast it (if nothing else, your body is essentially in a constant state of warfare with all sorts of foreign agents that have managed to get in, not to mention who knows how many bacteria and such that aren't particularly foreign).

since the spell includes rules that reflect lasting more than 0 seconds, the only conclusion is that the spell was not written with the intent to that it stop working as soon as something you do could potentially result in bad things happening to other people. otherwise the spell description would be something to the effect of:

"this spell is really just a massive troll, it does nothing except expend your PPE and draw the attention of any psi-stalkers or dog boys that happen to be nearby at a time when what you really desperately wanted was to avoid being noticed".

That's not what I am saying either. What I am saying is that you can't use it to get the drop on someone in combat. (no freebies). You can do all sorts of other things with it, even stuff that could, eventually, harm someone. But nothing that is going to hurt them in the near term. I can use it to scout out the best places to put bombs, but I cant put the bombs. I can sneak into the palace, but I cant put poison in the food. Its not a troll, its a scouting thing. That's my take on it at least.

[Killer Cyborg]

So, how exactly is it "hostile" to point a gun at somebody?

If the person your pointing it at was taught never to point a gun at someone unless you intend to use it, would interpret your action as hostile.

"Somebody might interpret it as hostile" is NOT the same as "hostile."

SO what we are saying here is that semantics have no place, and that there is no values judgment to be used. Only absolute terms?
I think that we HAVE to use semantics, we are going to have to make subjective decisions on 'hostility'

It's not that semantics have no place.
It's that the personal opinion of PCs and NPCs doesn't affect the way that spells work.
Impervious to Energy works a specific way, regardless of whether characters in the game perceive things.

Especially, I think, when the other person cannot see what you're doing.

You're not offending anybody by pointing a gun at them, because they don't know that you're there.
Not that I think for a moment that Palladium meant to include "offending sensibilities" in with their use of the word "hostile."

Its not offending that's the issue, its the fact that what your doing is inherently 'hostile' its MEANT to be harmful.

a) It IS the issue that was being brought up under that definition of "hostile."
b) How is pointing a gun at somebody harmful?
(I asked that one before, but got no answer.)

RUE 213 describes it as:
The magic is broken only if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks.

But it's also described later as:
an act of aggression or combat

It's pretty clear in context that Palladium seems to be using "hostile" and "aggression" as synonyms.

Not quite. It just means that there are now THREE things that break it. With out something specifically stating that Hostile = Aggression then you cant assume that Aggression is not your combat portion, and Hostile is still something else.

Why do you think that "aggression" and "hostility" are necessarily different things, when they're synonyms?

Here's the definition of "Aggression":
- angry or violent behavior or feelings
- hostile action against another country, government, etc.

And now we have come back full circle....what is a hostile action?

It's an action, for one thing, not a thought or feeling.
Can we agree to that much?
If so, then I can elaborate further.

I think that the overall context is pretty clear that Palladium is NOT talking about having violent feelings, but rather having violent behavior.
That's why they're always pairing their terms ("hostile" and "aggression") with "combat" or "attack."

Pointing a gun at somebody isn't inherently hostile.
Even going with the definitions of "hostile" or "aggression" that focus on feelings, it isn't necessarily hostile or aggressive there either.
It's just pointing a weapon at a target.

And THAT is EXACTLY why its hostile. Your wording says it all "pointing a weapon at a target."

So if I point a weapon at a wall, that's hostile in your mind?

You are pointing it at something with the INTENTION of shooting it.

You can point a weapon at something without immediate intent to shoot it.
Either way, again, you're focusing your definition of "hostile" on thought-on intent-instead of on actual results or actions.

By doing it you are inherently doing something that you KNOW will lead to its harm, RIGHT NOW.

No.
Pointing a gun does NOT, ever result in harm all by itself.
It's actually firing the gun that results in harm.

In the case we're discussing, it's not going to offend anybody, because nobody can see it. You're not doing it in order to hurt somebody's feelings, and nobody's feelings are hurt by it.
It's only when you pull the trigger that it becomes a hostile act.

Its when you pull the trigger that its a combat attack. Its Hostile before that. Which is why they used the "or" as the conjunction and not an "and"

If only people's usage of English was that clear.
But a lot of the time, people use "or" to separate synonyms or redundant terms.
I kind of did it right there, in fact.

IF Palladium was notoriously precise in their grammar, then you'd have a case... but they're not.

Instead of just looking at the definition for "hostile" and going with a conglomeration of the definitions, look at the intent of the spell.
Does anybody here truly believe that the spell was meant to end the moment you flip somebody the bird? Or the moment you insult or mock somebody?

False premise. This is not about insulting its about trying to harm them, there is a key difference.

Reread the posted definition of "hostile," and other people's comments along those lines.

I hope not, because being able to taunt your enemies while invisible is one of the key tropes to that power

Again false premise this is not a discussion about the theoretical concept of invisibility, but a specific implementation of it in this game.

Do you believe that the implementation in this game was designed to buck the standard trope, or to represent it?

So who here really believes that Palladium meant to end the spell any time that very common event happens?
With a 7th level spell?

Again your taking random non-related information and trying to shoehorn it into the discussion. I am pretty sure that's defined as a 'logical fallacy'

What I was doing was asking a straightforward question.
Interesting that you chose not to give a straightforward answer to it.

In any case, we all know where Palladium came up with this spell. We all know that they got it from D&D. It's just the Rifts version of a D&D spell.
We know that, because D&D was the first time anybody had an invisibility spell END when the person attacked somebody.
(Or, at the very least, they were the first popular game/setting/whatever to include that balancing feature)
And in D&D, the invisibility ends the moment AFTER that first attack, not the moment BEFORE it.
Unless somebody wants to argue that Palladium copied a D&D spell, but changed this one effect without doing anything to highlight the change...?

Okay, I will make the argument. Its a pretty "duh" argument. Open your PF1 book. Look at the spells. Hrmm, wow interesting I see magic that was INSPIRED by AD&D, but its not cut and paste. Its ALL homebrew changes. They changed stuff EVERYWHERE. So the argument that the rules of another game are some how relevant to this one is ludicrous. They have NOTHING to do with this one. Other than being an inspiration for the game. They obviously changed the spell to match their play style (In AD&D for instance you leave tracks....) And as for your 'highlight the change'
1) why would they have to say "this spell is different from some other guys game in the following ways?" Its in THEIR RULE BOOK use their rules
2) They did though "..A hostile act...."

1. They wouldn't have to say it. They'd have to SHOW it. Like they do with the part about not leaving tracks.
2. That's not highlighting anything, because it's not clear. If it was truly highlighted, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because it would be something there for everybody to plainly see.

Seriously, I don't see why we're arguing about this.
It might not be a cardboard box on wheels, but it's pretty close.
The intent of the spell is obvious. Don't let semantic hang-ups overwhelm basic logic.

Because your making a semantic hang-up (hostile doesn't mean hostile it just means attacking) AND your throwing logic out the window (Or =/= And is a good place to start on logic...)

I didn't start the semantic argument over the meaning of the term, and I'm being entirely logical.
Pointing a weapon at somebody does not seem to be "hostile" in the sense of the term that Palladium meant it to be.
It's illogical to claim that intent in this case is more important than actual action.