Forums of the Megaverse®

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.

You never do miss an opportunity to miss the forest for the trees, do you.

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.

Once again, it hasn't changed.

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.

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!

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.


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.


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


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


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!

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!

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.

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.


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


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


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.


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


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.

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


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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

"Some" or "most" are not obligatory additions, but they are certainly optional interpretations to anything not saying "all".

Your "are immortal" + "perish only when slain" line is not about ALL supernatural beings, it's contradicted within the very book it is published since vamps are supernatural immortals who perish when not slain, like if they are walking on a rotten bridge and fall into a river.

"Slain" means the intentional killing by another being. Otherwise this is just "people die when they are killed".

Thank you for confirming that your "mortality dichotomy" argument never existed and thus your entire line of argument was baseless.

I'm not sure where you drew that from. The progression is:
*you introduced the mortality dichotomy from RUE in 2005 about all supernaturals
*I point out that DB10 and WB31 contradict it with gargoyles, therefore 05 no longer applies
*you claim WB1rev overrules those, but it actually doesn't since it isn't describing all supernaturals

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to follow the thread, why do you bother to come back and post? YOU are the one who claimed that the "mortality dichotomy" mattered in any way and you are also the one who introduced that term into the thread. I never advanced that claim. I did point out that even if one did accept your line of reasoning, you now had to accept that WB1 revised had made your claim moot, which you then tried to negate by claiming that it isn't describing all supernatural beings because you are adding words to the text instead of adhering to your own logic and arguing that now gargoyles must be immortal (or better yet, running with your "slain" argument and claiming that supernatural beings can't be accidentally killed by people or by environmental issues...to avoid upsetting the whole apple cart perhaps you should be arguing that "suns" in the Palladium universe are all sapient, or directed by a sapient being, who want to kill vampires, and that all running water is similarly under the control of someone who wants to wipe vampires out...or that water is all one giant communal being that wants to wipe those things out, but needs to be moving to exert its will).

Then you decided to claim that the "mortality dichotomy" (which is, one again, your term) was already contradicted when published, which would of course mean that it never existed in the first place. Not existing, it couldn't be "decanonized," and thus your argument was baseless from the start.

My position has been to accept what Paladium has clearly stated as of RUE: creatures of magic and supernatural beings are not the same thing. An expansion of the definition of supernatural beings to include creatures who die by means other than being slain does not change the definition of creature of magic, nor does it mean that the two terms mean the same thing. If you want the fuller version of that argument, please re-read the thread (and brush up on what your OWN arguments have been!).

For the curious World Book 35: Megaverse in Flames, page 31 settles the current canon status of Dragons.
They are Creatures of Magic who are NOT Supernatural beings... as they are explicitly listed on the list of beings vulnerable to Mystic Blight...which can not affect "true supernatural creatures"

eh, this is palladium. give them some time, they'll muddy the waters real good again soon enough.

heh
Just for you then I would like to point out the Dragon-Gods
Who are explicitly defined as both dragons (Creatures of Magic) and gods (Supernatural Beings)

Giving us our "black swan" for a SNCoM.

More specifically, if anyone cites RUE from 2005 establishing an either/or relationship for Supernaturals/Magics, I will point out how the statements it makes on mortality are contradicted by gargoyles.


What words did I add? I thought I was pointing out the LACK of words.


You can support any of these conclusions if you like. I was pointing out how these conclusions should lead us to simply ignore that silly chunk.


I'll take credit for coining mortality dichotomy for describing the 2005 text if you take credit for relying on the 2005 text. In [urlhttp://www.palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2986720#p2986720]this post[/url] you affirmed my prediction that you would.


I have never asserted they are the same thing, just that it is possible to be a member of both groups. For example "red things" and "fruits". Parrots can be a member of 1 but not 2, kiwis can be a member of 2 but not 1, apples can be a member of both.


With the requirement for immortality taken away, what is left in the definition to be a distinguishing difference which makes it impossible to be both?


I'm going to request you stop poisoning by the well by arguing against something I have NEVER argued. I have NEVER said they mean the same thing. "Some red things can be fruits" is not "All red things are fruits".


Does it say ALL dragons are vulnerable to Mystic Blight? Exact phrasing needed.


Wasn't there also a Sphinx Godling somewhere?

it says "Dragons" no qualifier. That means... wait for it... Dragons. Otherwise it would have to say something like "some dragons" or "most dragons" or whatever.



Dunno. But all it takes is one black swan... and we have four

I could also argue "it would say something like all dragons or every dragons", conversely.

Do you think there are no examples out there of "Zs are A" where there are some Zs who are not A?

You could also just admit that you are wrong and RUE is right, and that the sense supernatural beings dog boy power mentions beings that are unequivocally not supernatural beings, such as dragons.

Since Palladium does not make such statements in general, and they are not needed anyway... since the statement "effects dragons" means that it effects any and all dragons automatically as the statement is, in itself, inclusive and the statement "all dragons" is simply additional emphasis on a point already made

As to your second point... that would be your case to prove. If you want to claim that Palladium has made categorical statements where they then admitted that the category was not accurate that's fine... but you need to demonstrate it happened not simply posit that a hypothetical case that could have happened is evidence that they thus follow the policy that such an event would require.

So by all means, if you can demonstrate a case where they make a categorical statement and then also except part of the category in one statement then read said category by adding a qualifying "all" or "every" be my guest.

Until that time the books stance is quite clear and the disease affects all dragons.

Dragons being listed under "Sense Supernatural Beings" is a recurring example of places where they are affirmed to be supernatural beings.

RUE's definitions of what supernatural beings are was delegitimized by the re-affirmation of gargoyles as supernatural beings. Those requirements no longer apply.


If I say "SAMAS have killed dragons" does that mean they've killed ALL dragons?

Do you just keep on hoping that people are going to not bother reading the whole thread? First, if you follow the "by the year published" logic, then WB1 revised means that all supernatural creatures are immortal again, which includes gargoyles (which I already pointed out). But that doesn't even matter here. Gargoyles being supernatural creatures does not change the definition of creatures of magic in any way shape or form; all it does it mean that not all supernatural creatures are actually immortal. RUE says that the main difference between creatures of magic and supernatural beings is that creatures of magic are mortal. Read that again, the "main" difference. "Main" does not equal "only," and it never will.

Eliakon already cited your black swan: Dragon gods. So if a dragon is also a god, it can be a member of both groups (assuming that becoming a god doesn't make them cease to be a creature of magic; I haven't had time to look into that, but we'll assume for the moment that the assumption is correct). If your dragon isn't a god, it isn't. Since the Sense Supernatural Beings power mentions non-god dragons (as well as plain old magic-users), we know that the power applies to non-supernatural beings. That would be why it says "as well as creatures of magic such as fairies and dragons." The power also covers their ability to detect large amounts of PPE in things like amulets, talismans, or techno-wizard items. Since we know that techno-wizard items are not supernatural beings, we thus know that merely being mentioned under the "Sense Supernatural Beings" is not evidence of actually being a supernatural being. The power affirms that dragons are creatrues of magic when it says "creatures of magic such as fairies and dragons."

I already read and responded to your previous statement...

You are relying on:

Supernatural beings are immortal and perish only when slain by a third party

Plurality is not an absolute ruling, it does not suddenly make being slain the only way that any supernatural creature can die. You gave no valid counterargument to that. Maybe you're the one hoping people won't bother to read the whole thread?


This is a strawman argument, we all agree that dragons are creatures of magic, what we're discussing is whether or not they can also be supernatural beings in addition to that.

Unless you can point to a definition of creatures of magic that says they cannot also be supernatural, how CoM are defined is a moot point.

The only basis you had is that CoM are always mortal, with supernatural beings still able to be mortal, there is no precedent for mutual exclusivity.


I agree that "main difference" implies at least 1 "secondary difference".

RUE277 has a candidate for that:

They are not creatures of our Earth and reality, but the denizens of an alien reality.
As such, they are not even part of our plane of existence and must somehow link themselves to our human dimension.
Thus, when they are slain on Rifts Earth or any mortal world, they disintegrate or vanish like a ghost as if they never existed.

This obviously is not intended to apply to ALL supernatural beings, because we know some leave their corpses behind on Rifts Earth. Disintegration is a rarity we know happens to Hadesians/Dyvalians, but NOT every supernatural being.

So since this secondary difference also clearly no longer applies, the differences you attribute to all supernatural beings are not in effect, and so do not exclude creatures of magic from being supernatural.

If you read a little further down on 277 you'll see something which should clarify the intentions at the time:

One way for great supernatural beings to enter our plane of existence is by sending forth lesser servants and communing with mortals so that they may gather mortal worshipers.
The more worshipers the supernatural being gathers, the stronger its link to the mortal plane.

This clarifies that "supernatural being" in the context of this glossary is only intended to describe the characteristics of "great supernatural beings", not ALL supernatural beings.

For example, read further down:
The inhuman nature of the supernatural beings make them and humans natural enemies.

Does that sound like something targeting Sea Titans or Undead Slayers?

I suggest you take the "be they god or demons" from the first sentence as an intended requirement. This glossary entry is titled "Demons, Gods & Supernatural Beings" so it is referencing the subset of supernatural beings who are "great" members of these groups, and the special properties they have.


RUE 145 "Sense Supernatural Beings" is phrased:

the type/race of supernatural beings, such as
..
creatures of magic
..
they can recognize practitioners and creatures of magic

We have previously seem PoM referred to as CoM, so that can still be viewed as in place here. What this appears to support is the idea that CoM are considered a subset of SBs.

You must keep in mind that the power descriptions for Psi-Hounds and Psi-Stalkers are modified reprints, whereas the silly glossary definition for supernatural beings was new, probably thrown in at the last minute and obviously ignored because it wasn't applied elsewhere.


This simply means that supernatural beings who are also creatures of magic are not excluded for being dual-designated. Some of the Fairy Folk are also explicitly supernatural beings like dragons are.


I have already affirmed that dragons are creatures of magic, so please stop arguing as if I've ever said they are not.

My argument is that it is possible to be both.

Cite the fairies that you claim are both.

I'm not relying on any kind of mortality dichotomy. That is why I've not bothered giving a counter-argument. The only person to rely on that at any point has been you, until you abandoned it because it never was an actual thing. I merely pointed out that even accepting your logic you had no argument to make (which perhaps inspired you to abandon the argument). You continue to rely on it, actually, even as you claim that you don't.

I'm relying on the clear statements in RUE that they are distinct, and the utter lack of non-deific examples that could potentially be both. My argument doesn't even need to look at supernatural beings apart from checking that it doesn't contradict p. 276, and it doesn't. As I pointed out earlier, you are clearly one of the people on whom the distinction is lost (a statement that makes no sense if one can be both). The entire context of that entry on RUE 276 is dedicated to pointing out that one can't be both. Dragons wouldn't snarl at the suggestion if they were both. They do, and one can't be both (unless, perhaps, one is a deity).

The most inane argument that you have made, however, is to claim that p. 145, which clearly lists creatures of magic as distinct from supernatural beings, somehow supports creatures of magic also being supernatural beings. Only now a subset, utterly giving the lie to your claims that you don't argue for them to be the same thing!

I believe it was the Nymphs, even in the revised edition.

Mortality dichotomy is the term I've used to summarize the viewpoint that mortal creatures are disqualified from being supernatural beings. If you have another disqualifier, I'll term that something else. For example I'll term it "corpse dichotomy" if you want to argue that creatures of magic who explicitly leave corpses can't be superatural because supernatural creatures never leave corpses.

If you have any other reasoning for a dichotomy (the necessity of mutual exclusivity preventing creatures from being both) please clarify it and I'll probably come up with a nickame for the argument to me to reference it easier.

I'm not relying on anything here, I'm trying to come up with terms to represent the specifics of whatever arguments you might want to make, so I can better respond to them. I don't believe a mortality dichotomy or corpse dichotomy exists because Gurgoyles disprove both.

If you never intended to argue based on those dichotomies in the definition, then please clarify what you are arguing from and what you would like me to nickname it.

The problem with your "distinct" argument is that distinct does not mean mutually exclusive. Clarifying that different words mean different things does not prevent a thing from being both of those things.

For example I can say:

"the main difference between lumberjacks and hairdressers is that lumberjacks cut trees and hairdressers cut hair"
"the main difference between boxing and fencing is that boxers hit with their hands and fencers hit with swords"

There is absolutely nothing preventing someone from being both a hairdresser and a lumberjack, or a boxer and a fencer.

"Equiangular" and "Equilateral" have different meanings, but regular polygons can be both, as another example.

Nope, Nymphs are just supernatural beings. It says "considered a creature of magic and nature." There is no defined category of "creatures of magic and nature." This is not your black swan.

On that we agree.

I clarified what I was arguing from in my previous post.

You attempts to prove this based on boxing and fencing fail because those are terms whose definition you meet based on what you do. Creature of magic versus supernatural being is akin to human versus insect. You are one or the other. You aren't both.

Language logic would say that being a creature of magic AND nature would still be a creature of magic. It's not like if dragons were called "creatures of the skies" in one of the books that suddenly being a creature of 2 things would mean they aren't creatures of either thing.

Nymphs are classified as faerie folk who I believe were somewhere collectively classified as creatures of magic.

Human is a species, insect is a higher-up category.

"Human" and "mammal" is also what people "are" yet they can be both. Or "infant" and "animal". Or "tall" and "quadrupedal".

I can also say "primary difference between brown-haired people and brown-skinned people is that BHPs are distinguished by hair color ad BSPs are distinguished by skin color" if you want to be all technical about "do" vs "be".

Though I find what you're focusing on to be off-topic because we are talking about nouns with overlapping defining characteristics, not the nature of those characteristics.

Yes, Nymphs are both a CoM and a SNC. (I cite the Conversion Book, unrevised which states that their RCC is Creature of Magic)
That doesnt mean anything beyond that though.
Put bluntly, simply because they exist as a black swan does not mean that ALL CoMs are SN. Just that there are some beings that are both.

This is important because the argument is that the "Sense the Supernatural" power lists supernatural AND then a list of things that are NOT Supernatural Creatures.
This does not mean that all those things are ALSO Supernatural Creatures... simply that they can be sensed with the same 'scanner' that is used to ping Supernatural Creatures.

The wording means that it isn't being used as the technical term "creature of magic" in Palladium's parlance.

Regarding Nymphs, I was looking at conversion book, revised.

Regarding the rest, I agree with everything that you wrote, as that has been my point. The "Sense the Supernatural" power also allows detection of things that aren't supernatural creatures.

Agreed. The only precedent for that would be how "Sense Supernatural Beings" powers include CoMs.


Are they explicitly not supernatural creatures though? Or is there merely a lack of statements other than this power describing them as supernatural?


This is certainly a very distinct argument than whether or not you can be both (like Nymphs and Dragons) which is useful to explore.

Since the power is not "Sense Supernatural Beings And Other Strange Enigmas" though... the question is, how much stock should we be putting into the titles of abilities to describe their function?

I would think we should interpret them "as written" unless explicitly told elsewhere that something is not a supernatural being in a LATER publication.


Naw "creature of magic and beans" is still "creature of magic" IMO.


Or... does the STS power including this things qualify as elevating them to the status of supernatural?

In which case, if a later publication specifies they are no longer supernatural (contradicting RUE) this would mean that aspect of the power can no longer sense them.

Luckily enough, a "Practitioner of Magic" being demoted from Supernatural Being would not prevent Psi-Stalkers / Psi-Hounds from sensing them, since both still have a "Sense Magic" primary power which can still ping them, just at a shorter range and percentage.

Incorrect. There is no precedent from that because that is a specific ability that can detect them because THIS ability also incorporates "sense psychic and magic energy"
Now if you can find any other definition that makes them equal and can cite it then you can talk.
Otherwise... just no.


The book says it flatly
Supernatrual beings, such as <examples> as well as Creatures of Magic.
Thus right there it says that Supernatural Beings and Creatures of Magic are two different things, that is what "as well as" means... it is in addition to, not part of.


No there isn't any use to that issue.
If you are A supernatural being you ping.
If you are a Creature of Magic you Ping
There is nothing what soever relevant about if you are both.



As much as the power appears to give.
This power has a list of things that it detects, not all of which are Supernatural Beings. Thus the book clearly 100% states unequivicobly that while the power is listed as "sense Supernatural Beings" it can, and does, detect other things as well.


That goes against what the book states though.
The book flatly states that it detects Supernatural Beings AND other things that are NOT supernatural beings. Thus any claim that it does otherwise is simply a house rule changing the published material.


Can you provide a citation for that or is it simply your stance that different things are the same if and when you say they are?


No, because it says "as well as" not "such as" thus it is a separate class of entity and not a sub-class.


Again, this is predicated on a falsehood. Specifically trying to make "as well as" into "such as". Using what is written not what we want to be written is the key to understanding the RAW.


Again, your making up things that do not exist to then try and justify them... strawman anyone?
No one has ever claimed practicianers of magic are supernatural beings other than you... and you had to change the written text to do so. Thus any arguments based on that conclusion are no more relevant than arguments about Elvis or flying space monkeies.

RUE 145 reminder:

3. Sense Supernatural Beings: Identical in basic function and principle to the ability Sense Psychic and Magic Energy, described in number one, above, except the mutant dog is much more sensitive to the very distinctive psychic scent of the supernatural.
..
Dog Boys can feel - almost taste- magic in the air. This means they can recognize practitioners and creatures of magic by the amount of P.P.E. they possess

In all likelihood, this was text they intended to put into power 1 but which somehow made its way into power 3. But RAW since this stuff is under SSB it is referring to SBs always, the opening description makes that clear.


That is not flatly saying you can't be both, just implying there are some races who may be a member of either group so it is necessary to state both.

I can say "artists, such as Picasso, as well as writers, such as Tolkien". This doesn't mean you can't be both an artist and writer. In anticipation of another "what they do" / "what they be" complaint: you can be a brown-eyed person and a brown-haired person. Saying both groups exhibit the color brown isn't saying they can't overlap.


When I said useful I mean "in general" not as it pertains to a specific power which works the same on both.


How do you know they're not all supernatural beings?

Sure, it talks about faeries, magical objects and practitioners of magic, but one could view that as RUE "supernaturalizing" something you did not previously consider part of that category for some reason.


Nowhere in power 3 does it state that practitioners of magic are not supernatural beings, or that amulets or Techno-Wizard items are not supernatural beings. You are relying on some unknown external criteria to establish that, what is it?


You don't need a citation explaining how language works. "Land of milk and honey" is a subset of the groups "lands of milk" and "lands of honey". That's just how syntax works.


What it says:

the specific type/race of supernatural beings, such as alien intelligences, gods, demigods, demons and vampires, as well as creatures of magic

Followed by "such as Faeries and dragons" explaining the CoM subgroup of SNBs.

Your idea of substituting "such as" for "as well as" would produce this:

demons and vampires, such as creatures of magic

That makes no sense. CoM is simply a continuation of the list which didn't end with vampires.

If it had said:

"SBs (such as AIS, gods, demis, demos and vamps) as well as CoMs (such as drags and fae)"

I would agree with you, as parenthesis would clearly show different groupings. Here though it doesn't make grammatical sense. The comma after SBs and lack of semicolon after vampires shows it to be one continuous list.

If you wanted the meaning to be "race of SBs" + "race of CoMs" then you would see an OR in the middle, not an "as well as". "As well as" means a continuation of the list of SBs, if it was generating a new list of things you could "identify the specific type" of, then only an "or" makes sense there.


eliakon wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
In which case, if a later publication specifies they are no longer supernatural (contradicting RUE) this would mean that aspect of the power can no longer sense them.

Again, this is predicated on a falsehood. Specifically trying to make "as well as" into "such as". Using what is written not what we want to be written is the key to understanding the RAW.


You're arguing a straw man here, "such as" would not make any sense there, since following "vampires" it would be describing faeries/vampires as a type of vampire.

The "such as" already exits, following SBs, with a list that concludes:

demons, and vampires, as well as creatures of magic such as Faeries and dragons

"A, and B, as well as C" is still describing one collective group.


Strawman arguments refer to when you invent fake arguments and attribute them to an enemy and then argue against that fake argument. The term does not apply when you are merely referring to people drawing conclusions you don't agree with.


Actually, the claim that practitioners of magic are supernatural beings is present in the text, because a power for detecting SBs detects them if they have high PPE. Same with certain magic items.

This doesn't mean they are ALWAYS supernatural beings, mind you, only when they have enough PPE to be sensed by this power do they qualify as supernatural.

I haven't had to change anything here, I didn't write the power. RUE145 made changes not present in RMB 109. Back then "Sense supernatural beings" (no capital or S or B back then) only mentioned "includes demons, vampires, and dragons" but didn't mention anything about practitioners of magic or amulets, so this is yet another case of a shadowy RUE upgrade in ability which many of us overlook by not paying attention to the DIFFs.

RMB 105's entry for the psi-stalker was pretty similar except its examples were "demons, vampires, and entities".

RUE 153 for the Psi-Stalker has different examples too:

the supernatural (demons, Elementals, Godlings, etc.)
includes demons, vampires and Entities

So you wouldn't know from that that SSBs included PoMs and some TW devices, not the first time you'd have to look in usual places to understand the game mechanics. Your gear can be beings!