Invisibility granting immunity to lasers?

[zaccheus]

The caster's, techniquelly it wouldn't, but effectively he'd be blind being unable to absorb light, well blind in regards to the spectrums the spell operates in

And yet, the invisible person can see normally.
Which indicates that his/her eyes are able to absorb light normally.
Which indicates that he/she is able to absorb light normally overall.

Or he just sees magically.

This also works

[Killer Cyborg]

The caster's, techniquelly it wouldn't, but effectively he'd be blind being unable to absorb light, well blind in regards to the spectrums the spell operates in

And yet, the invisible person can see normally.
Which indicates that his/her eyes are able to absorb light normally.
Which indicates that he/she is able to absorb light normally overall.

cite please

lol

Cite where I have the information that the invisible person can see normally?


I'll grant you, the spell descriptions don't outright say it.
So yeah, if you want to argue that Invisibility makes you impervious to lasers, but also BLIND, I'm not going to argue with you a whole lot. You're wrong, but at least you're consistent!

But here are some reasons to reasonably assume that Invisible people can see normally:
1. The text never mentions anything about them NOT being able to see normally, and the whole "if you're invisible because you cannot reflect/absorb light, then you're also blind" is obscure enough that the authors would point it out if this were how the spell worked.
2. BoM 97 (Invisibility Simple)
While invisible, the mage can talk, weave spells, walk, climb, run, open doors, carry objects, and perform other acts of physical exertion, including combat, and remain invisible.
Most of which require some kind of sight as a norm, and although technically they can be performed blind, there is no note of such abnormality.

[Killer Cyborg]

The caster's, techniquelly it wouldn't, but effectively he'd be blind being unable to absorb light, well blind in regards to the spectrums the spell operates in

And yet, the invisible person can see normally.
Which indicates that his/her eyes are able to absorb light normally.
Which indicates that he/she is able to absorb light normally overall.

Or he just sees magically.

This also works

Right.
It works almost as well as "he is just magically invisible."

[Killer Cyborg]

Cherry-picking the benefits is where I think it sits wrong with most (at least with me).

Science says that invisibility would be immune to lasers. Take the bonus.
Science says that invisibility would be blind as well. Ignore the penalty.

Absorbing the light to see but making the argument to not absorb the light to be hit feels wrong. But I admit I like consistency. Arguing for logic and the bonuses that comes with it but against the penalties that comes with that logics feels ... hypocritical (at least to me).

Not just to you.

[Killer Cyborg]

I would say that I use science as far as Possible to explain things in my game in order to maintain immersion and hand wave or say "it's magic" once I get to a point that science no longer applies logically. So eventually it will become hypocritical with regards to science but consistent with regards to maximum immersion (or least suspended disbelief) and most importantly consistent with most enjoyable

I get it- you want to come up with pseudo-science explanations of the effect of magic in order to help with your suspension of disbelief.
The thing is, it's just stuff that you're making up in order to make you feel better.
It's not official.
It's not in the books.
It's just stuff that you're making up to make yourself feel better.

Which is perfectly cool if you can (unlike others) admit that this is all it is.
The issue comes in when somebody tries to claim that their personal fantasy is
a) the only logical conclusion
b) official
c) any better than anybody else's personal fantasy
d) any combination of the above

Which, unfortunately, some people are trying to do.

[zaccheus]

I would say that I use science as far as Possible to explain things in my game in order to maintain immersion and hand wave or say "it's magic" once I get to a point that science no longer applies logically. So eventually it will become hypocritical with regards to science but consistent with regards to maximum immersion (or least suspended disbelief) and most importantly consistent with most enjoyable

I get it- you want to come up with pseudo-science explanations of the effect of magic in order to help with your suspension of disbelief.
The thing is, it's just stuff that you're making up in order to make you feel better.
It's not official.
It's not in the books.
It's just stuff that you're making up to make yourself feel better.

Which is perfectly cool if you can (unlike others) admit that this is all it is.
The issue comes in when somebody tries to claim that their personal fantasy is
a) the only logical conclusion
b) official
c) any better than anybody else's personal fantasy
d) any combination of the above

Which, unfortunately, some people are trying to do.

Lol obviously it's fantasy. That's what we are all doing, including you.

The argument is about the rule, not house rules, and I think I made it clear when I was "ruling" something vs explaining what the rule is.

Just in case though, for clarity, the rule says the caster is undetectable using vision. Regardless why (magic or physical means) this explicitly means the caster does not reflect, absorb or emit light. That is what undetectable means (with regard to vision, in theory it could also mean that the observer is blind, but with regards to invis this clearly isn't the case). If you have a different definition I'd like to hear it

[cornholioprime]

.....As for the rest of the debate, I don't intend to really get back into it. Though I will say this, I think those in favor of trying to explain magical Invisibility with science/logic so that the character is immune to lasers would have a better chance of having those ideas accepted if the penalties that came along with that logic weren't hand-waved away. Cherry-picking the benefits is where I think it sits wrong with most (at least with me).

Science says that invisibility would be immune to lasers. Take the bonus.
Science says that invisibility would be blind as well. Ignore the penalty.

Absorbing the light to see but making the argument to not absorb the light to be hit feels wrong. But I admit I like consistency. Arguing for logic and the bonuses that comes with it but against the penalties that comes with that logics feels ... hypocritical (at least to me).

Anyways, I think that's all for now. I really only stopped back in to address the See the Invisible thing. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Spot on, Prysus.

If you're arguing that [[Spell/Psionic/Super-powered effect X]] works based on Physics, then you really need to explain ALL the Physics, both beneficial and detrimental.

Because while Supernatural Effects can -and do -pick and choose what rules they will ignore, what rules they will follow, and in the process throw any semblance of consistency and logic out the window.....the Laws of Physics don't play favorites, and have logical, consistent, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" effects to everything they affect.

Again, Prysus, excellent posting.

[Killer Cyborg]

Just in case though, for clarity, the rule says the caster is undetectable using vision. Regardless why (magic or physical means) this explicitly means the caster does not reflect, absorb or emit light.

No, it just means that the caster (target) cannot be seen.

That is what undetectable means (with regard to vision, in theory it could also mean that the observer is blind, but with regards to invis this clearly isn't the case). If you have a different definition I'd like to hear it

It means you cannot be detected.
This does not necessarily mean "does not reflect, absorb, or emit light."
If somebody is behind a brick wall, I cannot visually detect them.
If somebody is wearing camouflage, and it is good enough, then I cannot visually detect them.
If my vision is impaired in various ways, then I cannot detect a person.
If my mind is impaired in various ways, then I cannot detect a person.

Consequently, the magic spell might:
-create a tangible (though flimsy) coating around the target that looks exactly like the background behind the person, thereby obstructing view while providing a means for the obstruction itself to be unnoticed.
-Change the target's coloration to exactly match whatever is behind them, thereby preventing visual detection.
-Impair the vision of anybody/everybody viewing the target in a number of ways, thereby preventing visual detection.
-Impair the mental abilities of anybody/everybody viewing the target in a number of ways, thereby preventing visual detection.

OR, as I've stated before, the person might simply be rendered undetectable as a direct result of the magic, rather than through any indirect means like the above. Like a cosmic cheat-code, there is no in-game explanation, it just happens.
Which I believe is the most likely way for magic to manifest, given its supernatural nature, and the definition of "supernatural" as being beyond scientific understanding.

OR it could be something simple, logical, and in accordance with physics as we know it... but something that nobody here in the forums has happened to think of.
"We handful of people have not imagined x" does not mean that x cannot exist. More importantly, it sure as hell does NOT mean that Y is necessarily the answer.
Whether or not anybody can come up with a superior answer to "the person is unaffected by light" does not mean that "the person is unaffected by light" is the answer. Just like the issue of whether or not anybody 10,000 years ago could imagine a better answer than "the world is flat" did not mean that the world actually was flat.

[cornholioprime]

Furthermore, to further debunk this notion of Magical Invisibility following physical laws.......

...Any object picked up after the character has become invisible remains visible. Likewise, any item on his person that is dropped becomes visible.

If this Invisibility Spell simply bends light around the recipient of the spell, then any object picked up by the invisible person should become invisible, partially or totally, and depending on its size, just by the invisible person hugging it close to his person. But it doesn't.

But even if the Invisibility Spell "changes" the person's visibility by (temporarily) transforming them and everything on their person into light-bending structures at the time of casting, then items that they drop shouldn't become visible until the spell duration elapses. But they do.

Would somebody on the "invisibility-works-according-to-the-Laws-of-Physics" side of things PLEASE explain that particular conundrum to me?

[eliakon]

There was a request from the physics side for a ‘simple’ explanation that was magical without being 'its magic'

From Practical Magick 65th edition 105 PA
The invisibility spell that you will be studying is one of an order of spells known as 'infusions'. This spell infuses the subject with large quantities of N-state Hermions. These as we all know are a semi-sentient mana particle and are used widely in enchantments that require autonomous discrimination. Matter that has been so infused no longer interacts with the universe in regards to the specified condition. The incantation here will effectively negate a person’s existence to the universe for sensory purposes. It is not required to define the negated set, as the 'sense' noun in the second stanza does so. While this is called invisibility as that is the primary effect to races that utilize sight as their primary sense, it is actually more of an 'un-sensing' spell, as you no longer register to most active or passive senses.

presto, an explination, that is both
magical
self consistant
allows ALL the abilities of the spell

thoughts? comments?

[Nightmask]

"...makes the spell caster invisible to all means of detection.

Interesting, what is the full write up (save me digging it out), does this mean that you would be invisible to the Blind Warrior Women's Radar sense also and other more obscure forms of detection like the echolocation of Dolphins or a Bats sonar?

From what I am reading--yes.

I didn't get into that, because I was more focusing on the aspects that deal with light (and lasers) specifically. I would rule it would though because itcontinues to say that you cannot "even by located by an animal's sense of smell", I think by the way it's worded it's not a complete list, just a list of many examples, so I would include sonar/echolocation.

Which means that there are two main ways that the Invisibility spells can be taken:
1. The magically render the target undetectable within certain parameters.
2. They magically warp light, rendering the target unseeable (to some or all light spectrums), AND the superior version also reduces sound, AND it negates radar, AND it negates the ability of others to smell them, AND so on... each via a separate means of negation along the lines of warping light.

Which explanation would you say is simplest and most straightforward?

Sad how you keep tossing out the 'it has to be one of two ways, my way which must be right and the wrong way' fallacy, and the way you're tossing out isn't an explanation at all. Explanations give answers to questions, you aren't giving out an explanation as it provides no answers to any question someone might have.

[Dr. Doom III]

Which means that there are two main ways that the Invisibility spells can be taken:
1. The magically render the target undetectable within certain parameters.
2. They magically warp light, rendering the target unseeable (to some or all light spectrums), AND the superior version also reduces sound, AND it negates radar, AND it negates the ability of others to smell them, AND so on... each via a separate means of negation along the lines of warping light.

Which explanation would you say is simplest and most straightforward?

2

[Nightmask]

The spell Invisibility specifically mentions light, and I quote; "...makes the spell caster invisible to all means of detection. Ordinary vision, infrared, ultraviolet and other optics..."

Right, it does mention light (more or less- the word "light" isn't actually in that quote).
But this does NOT mean that the spell makes the character invisible by bending light.
What the passage you quote is referring to is different kinds of vision, because invisibility is a power that by definition affects vision.
And yes, vision works via light... but that doesn't mean that the spell affects light, nor that it affects light in the way that you assume.

Vision can be affected by things other than light itself, you know.
The psionic power of invisibility clouds the mind, and affects vision that way.
Alcohol can affect vision, for that matter.
As can any number of other things.

KC you're deliberately twisting the intent there, it doesn't have to say the word 'light' when it specifically mentions actual wavelengths of light and means of detecting them. A human eye is just another optical sensor, and given it mentions actual light bands your argument that it's affecting the eye rather than light just isn't supported.

I've pointed out a number of examples of how vision can be affected without affecting light.
So I'm not sure why you're still insisting that "it bends light!" is the only means of rendering somebody invisible.

Because I'm free to decide what makes more sense and I don't have to accept what I see as an implausible, nonsensical response. You toss out examples you have to know make less sense and require more suspension of disbelief not less as if they actually make more sense, including methods that require the spell be acting on other people without exception. Which means in your example people impervious to the effects of magic still get affected somehow, which isn't believable.

[Nightmask]

In any case just drop it. You aren't going to convince anyone who knows better with your fallacies to agree with you and you're way too invested in your position due to the 'never give a player anything beyond what's expressly written in the books' mindset you're evincing to even remotely consider other possibilities and I'm sure everyone's tired of you repeating ad nauseum 'It's magic it's purpose is to not make sense and violate physics!' rather than stick with the original post. Everyone knows you refuse categorically and without consideration the idea of Invisibility providing protection from lasers, you've told everyone including the original poster you reject the possibility so just let it drop for everyone's sake. Forget yet another cut and paste of cherry-picking, fallacies, and the rest and let this thread die for everyone's sake.

NO, YOU DROP IT.

Because THIS is exactly what YOU are doing!!

THERE IS NO CLEAR OR ABSOLUTE ANSWER FOR HOW THEY ARE DOING IT! Because they do it different ways! It's magic is not a logical fallacy and do not think that just because you've flicked through a few pages wikipedia looking up terminology that you look intelligent because you are using it wrong. You are trying to cut down other peoples arguments without offering any clear answer, your debate style is stale and STAPLE of someone who has no grounds. You present NOTHING on your angle but to focus entirely on tearing down or cutting down others.

You're an ignorant idiot and I'm calling you out on it. Stop being an ignorant idiot Nightmask, because it makes you look stupid and just pisses everyone off.

Like usual you have had your say and like a wittle child you are dusting your hands and taking your toys and going home... with your fingers in your ears of course. KC can't possibly be right, no one can, because they don't fall within your paradigm or their perceptions do not coincide with you own (from my observations) VERY limited perception of reality/fantasy.

The thread dies when the topic is resolved and people have reached a mature point of closure... not when one person beats it and hassles everyone and repeats himself over and over and tears down everyone's arguments so that it is left in a limbo. There is a point of consensus, I know the concept is hard to grasp for someone as brilliant as you--especially since we are all so simple minded and fundamentally wrong--but it can happen.

Akashic, if you think everyone's an ignorant idiot because they disagree with you it's no wonder you don't play well with others and toss off tantrums and resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies as you do. You hold to a position that doesn't allow for providing decent answers to questions while calling me the idiot, you engage in a tirade because I won't go 'hey akashic's right so great of him to enlighten me' and tell you I don't agree with your position as providing any answers to the questions asked, and make it out that your bad manners are my fault rather than your own. I will continue to disagree with you as is my right and you can keep shouting how right you have to be because it's what you thought.

Warning: This post is a violation of forum rules regarding flaming. Do not make your posts about the poster. Instead limit your comments to the substance of their post. If their post is flaming or trolling, don't respond. Just hit the report button. If there is someone you consistently have problems with, add them as a foe in the user control panel.

[gaaahhhh]

In any case just drop it. You aren't going to convince anyone who knows better with your fallacies to agree with you and you're way too invested in your position due to the 'never give a player anything beyond what's expressly written in the books' mindset you're evincing to even remotely consider other possibilities and I'm sure everyone's tired of you repeating ad nauseum 'It's magic it's purpose is to not make sense and violate physics!' rather than stick with the original post. Everyone knows you refuse categorically and without consideration the idea of Invisibility providing protection from lasers, you've told everyone including the original poster you reject the possibility so just let it drop for everyone's sake. Forget yet another cut and paste of cherry-picking, fallacies, and the rest and let this thread die for everyone's sake.

NO, YOU DROP IT.

Because THIS is exactly what YOU are doing!!

THERE IS NO CLEAR OR ABSOLUTE ANSWER FOR HOW THEY ARE DOING IT! Because they do it different ways! It's magic is not a logical fallacy and do not think that just because you've flicked through a few pages wikipedia looking up terminology that you look intelligent because you are using it wrong. You are trying to cut down other peoples arguments without offering any clear answer, your debate style is stale and STAPLE of someone who has no grounds. You present NOTHING on your angle but to focus entirely on tearing down or cutting down others.

You're an ignorant idiot and I'm calling you out on it. Stop being an ignorant idiot Nightmask, because it makes you look stupid and just pisses everyone off.

Like usual you have had your say and like a wittle child you are dusting your hands and taking your toys and going home... with your fingers in your ears of course. KC can't possibly be right, no one can, because they don't fall within your paradigm or their perceptions do not coincide with you own (from my observations) VERY limited perception of reality/fantasy.

The thread dies when the topic is resolved and people have reached a mature point of closure... not when one person beats it and hassles everyone and repeats himself over and over and tears down everyone's arguments so that it is left in a limbo. There is a point of consensus, I know the concept is hard to grasp for someone as brilliant as you--especially since we are all so simple minded and fundamentally wrong--but it can happen.

Akashic, if you think everyone's an ignorant idiot because they disagree with you it's no wonder you don't play well with others and toss off tantrums and resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies as you do. You hold to a position that doesn't allow for providing decent answers to questions while calling me the idiot, you engage in a tirade because I won't go 'hey akashic's right so great of him to enlighten me' and tell you I don't agree with your position as providing any answers to the questions asked, and make it out that your bad manners are my fault rather than your own. I will continue to disagree with you as is my right and you can keep shouting how right you have to be because it's what you thought.

Nightmask, I would put you on my ignore list after this thread, but you have some good posts in the off-topic forums. You've been very combative and unreasonable in this thread, and when anyone asks questions about your logic, you conveniently ignore anything that might interfere with your points. It's your game and you can play how you like, and I will play how I like. I have to ask what's really going on that you keep this going?

[cornholioprime]

There was a request from the physics side for a ‘simple’ explanation that was magical without being 'its magic'

From Practical Magick 65th edition 105 PA
The invisibility spell that you will be studying is one of an order of spells known as 'infusions'. This spell infuses the subject with large quantities of N-state Hermions. These as we all know are a semi-sentient mana particle and are used widely in enchantments that require autonomous discrimination. Matter that has been so infused no longer interacts with the universe in regards to the specified condition. The incantation here will effectively negate a person’s existence to the universe for sensory purposes. It is not required to define the negated set, as the 'sense' noun in the second stanza does so. While this is called invisibility as that is the primary effect to races that utilize sight as their primary sense, it is actually more of an 'un-sensing' spell, as you no longer register to most active or passive senses.

presto, an explination, that is both
magical
self consistant
allows ALL the abilities of the spell

thoughts? comments?

Sorry, but that explanation -from another fictional setting, of course - doesn't even come close to explaining all of the effects that Palladium's version of Invisibility simultaneously does as stated.
(As I will point out and elaborate, below, I get the feeling that this particular explanation doesn't even do a very good job of explaining invisibility in the fictional universe that the reference came from.)

1. By the wording of that reference that you listed, things carried on the caster at the time of his casting should remain invisible if he drops them, yet that is not the case.
2. Nor does that spell adequately explain how another person with the innate or granted ability to "See the Invisible" can still see the character normally while others cannot.
3. Nor does this "total invisible particle infusion" theory explain why or how the caster's blood becomes visible if he starts bleeding.
4. Beyond all that, this spell doesn't even explain how the spell effect extends to the personal effects of the caster as well as his body. And this last observation, to me, is true for both the fictional world that reference came from as well as the Palladium setting.

The reason why "It's just magic" works so perfectly as an explanation for how Invisibility Spells work in Palladium Games is because The Supernatural is explicitly stated to defy physical laws....and because the totality of effects in this spell defy both logic and physical laws.

[Nightmask]

Akashic, if you think everyone's an ignorant idiot because they disagree with you it's no wonder you don't play well with others and toss off tantrums and resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies as you do. You hold to a position that doesn't allow for providing decent answers to questions while calling me the idiot, you engage in a tirade because I won't go 'hey akashic's right so great of him to enlighten me' and tell you I don't agree with your position as providing any answers to the questions asked, and make it out that your bad manners are my fault rather than your own. I will continue to disagree with you as is my right and you can keep shouting how right you have to be because it's what you thought.

Nightmask, I would put you on my ignore list after this thread, but you have some good posts in the off-topic forums. You've been very combative and unreasonable in this thread, and when anyone asks questions about your logic, you conveniently ignore anything that might interfere with your points. It's your game and you can play how you like, and I will play how I like. I have to ask what's really going on that you keep this going?

So do explain how calling someone an 'ignorant idiot' for disagreeing with them constitutes being reasonable and non-combative? Or where 'It's magic it doesn't have to make sense!' constitutes being logical, or where 'the simplest explanation is that the spell affects light and is advanced enough to compensate for the downsides' is being illogical and without merit? Because my points have been quite reasonable, I have insulted no one (telling someone you disagree with them does not constitute insulting anymore), and out of all the people who've agreed with my points or I've agreed with as in keeping with my position the only one getting insulted and subjected to personal attacks is myself. So you really do need to explain what you think being reasonable and non-combative is as I don't think there are many who'd consider calling someone an ignorant idiot for disagreeing with them as being reasonable and non-combative.

[Nightmask]

There was a request from the physics side for a ‘simple’ explanation that was magical without being 'its magic'

From Practical Magick 65th edition 105 PA
The invisibility spell that you will be studying is one of an order of spells known as 'infusions'. This spell infuses the subject with large quantities of N-state Hermions. These as we all know are a semi-sentient mana particle and are used widely in enchantments that require autonomous discrimination. Matter that has been so infused no longer interacts with the universe in regards to the specified condition. The incantation here will effectively negate a person’s existence to the universe for sensory purposes. It is not required to define the negated set, as the 'sense' noun in the second stanza does so. While this is called invisibility as that is the primary effect to races that utilize sight as their primary sense, it is actually more of an 'un-sensing' spell, as you no longer register to most active or passive senses.

presto, an explination, that is both
magical
self consistant
allows ALL the abilities of the spell

thoughts? comments?

Sorry, but that explanation -from another fictional setting, of course - doesn't even come close to explaining all of the effects that Palladium's version of Invisibility simultaneously does as stated.
(As I will point out and elaborate, below, I get the feeling that this particular explanation doesn't even do a very good job of explaining invisibility in the fictional universe that the reference came from.)

1. By the wording of that reference that you listed, things carried on the caster at the time of his casting should remain invisible if he drops them, yet that is not the case.
2. Nor does that spell adequately explain how another person with the innate or granted ability to "See the Invisible" can still see the character normally while others cannot.
3. Nor does this "total invisible particle infusion" theory explain why or how the caster's blood becomes visible if he starts bleeding.
4. Beyond all that, this spell doesn't even explain how the spell effect extends to the personal effects of the caster as well as his body. And this last observation, to me, is true for both the fictional world that reference came from as well as the Palladium setting.

The reason why "It's just magic" works so perfectly as an explanation for how Invisibility Spells work in Palladium Games is because The Supernatural is explicitly stated to defy physical laws....and because the totality of effects in this spell defy both logic and physical laws.

That does seem to be the problem, you think the spell defies logic and physical laws, that magic inherently violates both and those who disagree because they don't believe 'it's magic' works because it's not actually capable of providing an answer to valid questions and want a consistent explanation that requires the least amount of handwaving are somehow in the wrong for that. There are pages and pages on this thread with the people who want to insist 'It's magic it doesn't have to make sense!' telling those who disagree that they're wrong, some insisting those who disagree are stupid wrong for wanting something that makes sense to them and to have a simple actual explanation that they can use to answer questions not covered by the spell itself.

The 'it's magic' side has kept insisting on that as an answer to the original question of 'does the spell provide protection from lasers', that clearly can't be an answer to that question that's an answer to 'what means of rendering one invisible is being discussed?'. That shouldn't be so hard to recognize and yet constantly 'it's magic' is given as an answer to a question that it isn't an answer to. It's like someone asking what time it is and telling them the bus runs every 15 minutes. A response is being given that doesn't answer the original question apparently based on the motivation to not give a micron more to a character than written in the spell description because once you define what the spell is doing you can no longer go 'no the spell doesn't work that way you can't get that out of it' if you've given a definitive answer as to what the spell does because then you're committed to what benefits and penalties it has based on that answer. Even though as I pointed out and was ignored on earlier the books don't tell you what damage you can do with a laser rifle if you bash someone with it it only gives its laser damage and by the argument that 'nothing more than what's written in the books' means the laser rifle doesn't do any damage when you hit someone with it because no damage is listed.

[gaaahhhh]

Akashic, if you think everyone's an ignorant idiot because they disagree with you it's no wonder you don't play well with others and toss off tantrums and resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies as you do. You hold to a position that doesn't allow for providing decent answers to questions while calling me the idiot, you engage in a tirade because I won't go 'hey akashic's right so great of him to enlighten me' and tell you I don't agree with your position as providing any answers to the questions asked, and make it out that your bad manners are my fault rather than your own. I will continue to disagree with you as is my right and you can keep shouting how right you have to be because it's what you thought.

Nightmask, I would put you on my ignore list after this thread, but you have some good posts in the off-topic forums. You've been very combative and unreasonable in this thread, and when anyone asks questions about your logic, you conveniently ignore anything that might interfere with your points. It's your game and you can play how you like, and I will play how I like. I have to ask what's really going on that you keep this going?

So do explain how calling someone an 'ignorant idiot' for disagreeing with them constitutes being reasonable and non-combative? Or where 'It's magic it doesn't have to make sense!' constitutes being logical, or where 'the simplest explanation is that the spell affects light and is advanced enough to compensate for the downsides' is being illogical and without merit? Because my points have been quite reasonable, I have insulted no one (telling someone you disagree with them does not constitute insulting anymore), and out of all the people who've agreed with my points or I've agreed with as in keeping with my position the only one getting insulted and subjected to personal attacks is myself. So you really do need to explain what you think being reasonable and non-combative is as I don't think there are many who'd consider calling someone an ignorant idiot for disagreeing with them as being reasonable and non-combative.

1) I don't think you are an ignorant idiot, and I think Akashic was unwise to get riled up and post without editing his comments for civility.
2) If the spell makes you invisible by bending light, then why doesn't it make you blind when you're under the effect? Also, why wouldn't they list a side effect as major as making you invulnerable to lasers? That's considerably more powerful than a lot of much higher level spells, and you still haven't addressed either of these (and apparently anyone who brings these up is trying to start "drama").
3) You seem to be taking every post that disagrees with you as a personal attack.

Honestly, I've posted here more than I should, so this will be my last post in this thread.

[Damian Magecraft]

In any case just drop it. You aren't going to convince anyone who knows better with your fallacies to agree with you and you're way too invested in your position due to the 'never give a player anything beyond what's expressly written in the books' mindset you're evincing to even remotely consider other possibilities and I'm sure everyone's tired of you repeating ad nauseum 'It's magic it's purpose is to not make sense and violate physics!' rather than stick with the original post. Everyone knows you refuse categorically and without consideration the idea of Invisibility providing protection from lasers, you've told everyone including the original poster you reject the possibility so just let it drop for everyone's sake. Forget yet another cut and paste of cherry-picking, fallacies, and the rest and let this thread die for everyone's sake.

NO, YOU DROP IT.

Because THIS is exactly what YOU are doing!!

THERE IS NO CLEAR OR ABSOLUTE ANSWER FOR HOW THEY ARE DOING IT! Because they do it different ways! It's magic is not a logical fallacy and do not think that just because you've flicked through a few pages wikipedia looking up terminology that you look intelligent because you are using it wrong. You are trying to cut down other peoples arguments without offering any clear answer, your debate style is stale and STAPLE of someone who has no grounds. You present NOTHING on your angle but to focus entirely on tearing down or cutting down others.

You're an ignorant idiot and I'm calling you out on it. Stop being an ignorant idiot Nightmask, because it makes you look stupid and just pisses everyone off.

Like usual you have had your say and like a wittle child you are dusting your hands and taking your toys and going home... with your fingers in your ears of course. KC can't possibly be right, no one can, because they don't fall within your paradigm or their perceptions do not coincide with you own (from my observations) VERY limited perception of reality/fantasy.

The thread dies when the topic is resolved and people have reached a mature point of closure... not when one person beats it and hassles everyone and repeats himself over and over and tears down everyone's arguments so that it is left in a limbo. There is a point of consensus, I know the concept is hard to grasp for someone as brilliant as you--especially since we are all so simple minded and fundamentally wrong--but it can happen.

Akashic, if you think everyone's an ignorant idiot because they disagree with you it's no wonder you don't play well with others and toss off tantrums and resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies as you do. You hold to a position that doesn't allow for providing decent answers to questions while calling me the idiot, you engage in a tirade because I won't go 'hey akashic's right so great of him to enlighten me' and tell you I don't agree with your position as providing any answers to the questions asked, and make it out that your bad manners are my fault rather than your own. I will continue to disagree with you as is my right and you can keep shouting how right you have to be because it's what you thought.

Nightmask, I would put you on my ignore list after this thread, but you have some good posts in the off-topic forums. You've been very combative and unreasonable in this thread, and when anyone asks questions about your logic, you conveniently ignore anything that might interfere with your points. It's your game and you can play how you like, and I will play how I like. I have to ask what's really going on that you keep this going?

oh thats easy...
Someone is obviously wrong on the internet (according to the laws which govern his universe).

[Nightmask]

Akashic, if you think everyone's an ignorant idiot because they disagree with you it's no wonder you don't play well with others and toss off tantrums and resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies as you do. You hold to a position that doesn't allow for providing decent answers to questions while calling me the idiot, you engage in a tirade because I won't go 'hey akashic's right so great of him to enlighten me' and tell you I don't agree with your position as providing any answers to the questions asked, and make it out that your bad manners are my fault rather than your own. I will continue to disagree with you as is my right and you can keep shouting how right you have to be because it's what you thought.

Nightmask, I would put you on my ignore list after this thread, but you have some good posts in the off-topic forums. You've been very combative and unreasonable in this thread, and when anyone asks questions about your logic, you conveniently ignore anything that might interfere with your points. It's your game and you can play how you like, and I will play how I like. I have to ask what's really going on that you keep this going?

So do explain how calling someone an 'ignorant idiot' for disagreeing with them constitutes being reasonable and non-combative? Or where 'It's magic it doesn't have to make sense!' constitutes being logical, or where 'the simplest explanation is that the spell affects light and is advanced enough to compensate for the downsides' is being illogical and without merit? Because my points have been quite reasonable, I have insulted no one (telling someone you disagree with them does not constitute insulting anymore), and out of all the people who've agreed with my points or I've agreed with as in keeping with my position the only one getting insulted and subjected to personal attacks is myself. So you really do need to explain what you think being reasonable and non-combative is as I don't think there are many who'd consider calling someone an ignorant idiot for disagreeing with them as being reasonable and non-combative.

1) I don't think you are an ignorant idiot, and I think Akashic was unwise to get riled up and post without editing his comments for civility.
2) If the spell makes you invisible by bending light, then why doesn't it make you blind when you're under the effect? Also, why wouldn't they list a side effect as major as making you invulnerable to lasers? That's considerably more powerful than a lot of much higher level spells, and you still haven't addressed either of these (and apparently anyone who brings these up is trying to start "drama").
3) You seem to be taking every post that disagrees with you as a personal attack.

Honestly, I've posted here more than I should, so this will be my last post in this thread.

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would, and you do have to remember that nobody is perfect and you've a handful of people creating the entire world offered up in an RPG at which point tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people end up becoming the end-product testers which is when all the holes and flaws get noticed. 'Gee I never thought about that, whether or not Invisibility would protect against lasers' is a perfectly valid answer on the issue of 'why would they leave out such a benefit?', they just didn't think about it. Powerful is also relative, there are higher level spells that are quite limited and puny yet considered high level spells and sometimes lower level spells provide significant benefits, that's just how it goes.

In regards to number 3, no I don't take people disagreeing with me as a personal attack. I may find it annoying when someone insists that 'no you have to tell me I'm right' but I don't consider that a personal attack, telling me I'm an idiot for not saying someone else is right on the other hand I do. People are free to think I'm wrong just as I'm free to think them wrong, but they aren't free to insist I have to tell them that they're right when I don't believe them to be or get insulting because they aren't going to get to hear what they want to hear. If you want to insist 'I allow for nothing outside what's written and provide no explanations to questions that come up' you're free to do that, it's a valid response to the question 'would lasers hurt an invisible person?'. 'It's magic it's not supposed to make sense!' and 'Stop trying to treat magic like it has rules!' aren't valid responses, those are 'my way is the only way and I don't accept anyone else's views as valid' responses.

[Prysus]

So do explain how calling someone an 'ignorant idiot' for disagreeing with them constitutes being reasonable and non-combative? Or where 'It's magic it doesn't have to make sense!' constitutes being logical, or where 'the simplest explanation is that the spell affects light and is advanced enough to compensate for the downsides' is being illogical and without merit? Because my points have been quite reasonable, I have insulted no one (telling someone you disagree with them does not constitute insulting anymore), and out of all the people who've agreed with my points or I've agreed with as in keeping with my position the only one getting insulted and subjected to personal attacks is myself. So you really do need to explain what you think being reasonable and non-combative is as I don't think there are many who'd consider calling someone an ignorant idiot for disagreeing with them as being reasonable and non-combative.

Greetings and Salutations. Well, I wasn't really planning to respond again, but the claims of innocence pulled me back in! I won't deny that what Akashic did was wrong, but that doesn't make you innocent. Let's look at what was said to him before his outburst.

Your opinion is noted and discarded as it's quite wrong

[snip]

What's wrong is assuming the worst intent of a question and coaching all of your responses from that point based on the erroneous notion that you've convinced yourself of, responses that put those asking the question and saying 'yes that seems plausible' on trial with a kangaroo court judgment of guilty having been decided from the very beginning.

Let's see. Claims of you disagree with me so you're wrong. Discarding someone's thoughts entirely (very rude). I could focus on a bit more there, but to say the least trying to degrade his thoughts with the "kangaroo court" is more offensive, especially when talking to an Australian (which Akashic is). For those who don't know, kangaroos are native to Australia. I'm not Australian, so I could be wrong on this last part, but I can think of quite a few comparisons that I won't mention because they'd come off as racist. Only after these comments did Akashic have a meltdown.

Though putting those comments to Akashic aside, why else might one say "combative and unreasonable"? Double standards might play a part. Such as ...

I was going to reply, but I realized I was just about to go back down the same road we've been over, and over, and over, and over.

So I'm just going to say...........................................


I LOVE TACOS!

Thanks for not doing so. Now hopefully the thread can die because it's clearly as burned out as a forest after a forest fire.

In any case just drop it. You aren't going to convince anyone who knows better with your fallacies to agree with you and you're way too invested in your position

[snip]

Forget yet another cut and paste of cherry-picking, fallacies, and the rest and let this thread die for everyone's sake.

So you beg others to stop repeating the same thoughts ad nauseum, but only you're allowed to repeat yourself over and over and over?

Sad how you keep tossing out the 'it has to be one of two ways, my way which must be right and the wrong way' fallacy, and the way you're tossing out isn't an explanation at all. Explanations give answers to questions, you aren't giving out an explanation as it provides no answers to any question someone might have.

Or how questions have been asked that challenge the bending light theory, but dismissed because you don't need to answer them? Doesn't that contradict exactly what you're preaching against?

Because I'm free to decide what makes more sense and I don't have to accept what I see as an implausible, nonsensical response.

There have been several various possibilities included in this thread. Though basically every idea that doesn't agree whole-heartedly with you is "implausable" and "nonsensical."

So no, gaaahhhh and Akashic aren't the only ones who have seen it. There's a reason why most others such as flatline and zaccheus didn't have people blow up on them. If anything, their case has been made harder by the combatitive attitude of posters who agree with them. Now that doesn't mean everyone on the other side has been completely reasonable either, as we've seen with at least one blow up.

Anyways, I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys to all.



(Edit) P.S. I was lazy, so I only took a few quotes from the last couple of pages (probably less than 30% of the actual thread). If I actually wanted to be thorough I could find a LOT more throughout the pages.

[Balabanto]

Uh, yeah, I didn't realize Akashic was Australian, either. Use of the phrase "kangaroo court" to an Australian is almost as bad as giving the "Ok" sign to a Brazilian, which is so nasty that it's pretty much fighting words. With knives.

You can PM me for what that means. I won't post it in an open forum.

Anyway, I'm pretty convinced that David Sleaze, Punk Magician has the right of this in all ways. You can find the skit on You Tube. Warning: Contains foul language.

[Killer Cyborg]

Which means that there are two main ways that the Invisibility spells can be taken:
1. The magically render the target undetectable within certain parameters.
2. They magically warp light, rendering the target unseeable (to some or all light spectrums), AND the superior version also reduces sound, AND it negates radar, AND it negates the ability of others to smell them, AND so on... each via a separate means of negation along the lines of warping light.

Which explanation would you say is simplest and most straightforward?

2

lol
Feel free to explain how.

[Killer Cyborg]

"...makes the spell caster invisible to all means of detection.

Interesting, what is the full write up (save me digging it out), does this mean that you would be invisible to the Blind Warrior Women's Radar sense also and other more obscure forms of detection like the echolocation of Dolphins or a Bats sonar?

From what I am reading--yes.

I didn't get into that, because I was more focusing on the aspects that deal with light (and lasers) specifically. I would rule it would though because itcontinues to say that you cannot "even by located by an animal's sense of smell", I think by the way it's worded it's not a complete list, just a list of many examples, so I would include sonar/echolocation.

Which means that there are two main ways that the Invisibility spells can be taken:
1. The magically render the target undetectable within certain parameters.
2. They magically warp light, rendering the target unseeable (to some or all light spectrums), AND the superior version also reduces sound, AND it negates radar, AND it negates the ability of others to smell them, AND so on... each via a separate means of negation along the lines of warping light.

Which explanation would you say is simplest and most straightforward?

Sad how you keep tossing out the 'it has to be one of two ways,

I'm guessing that you don't understand the word "main."

Explanations give answers to questions, you aren't giving out an explanation as it provides no answers to any question someone might have.

What kind of questions?

[Killer Cyborg]

I've pointed out a number of examples of how vision can be affected without affecting light.
So I'm not sure why you're still insisting that "it bends light!" is the only means of rendering somebody invisible.

Because I'm free to decide what makes more sense and I don't have to accept what I see as an implausible, nonsensical response.

Neither of those things mean that the ONLY means of rendering a person invisible is by bending light.

You toss out examples you have to know make less sense and require more suspension of disbelief not less as if they actually make more sense, including methods that require the spell be acting on other people without exception. Which means in your example people impervious to the effects of magic still get affected somehow, which isn't believable.

In the example of mind-affecting, yes, you're right.
Which is why I think it's pretty clear that that's not how the Invisibility spells work.

But the fact remains clear that light-bending is NOT the ONLY way to achieve invisibility.
It might be something else on that list of possibilities that I posted, or it might be something else that neither you or I have thought of.
Just because you can't personally think of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the game.
Just because I can't think of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the game.
Neither you nor I have all the answers, in this world or in the game world.
So to assume that "x" must equal a number that you're personally familiar with, simply because you're familiar with it, is absurd.

[Killer Cyborg]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

[zaccheus]

Just in case though, for clarity, the rule says the caster is undetectable using vision. Regardless why (magic or physical means) this explicitly means the caster does not reflect, absorb or emit light.

No, it just means that the caster (target) cannot be seen.

That is what undetectable means (with regard to vision, in theory it could also mean that the observer is blind, but with regards to invis this clearly isn't the case). If you have a different definition I'd like to hear it

It means you cannot be detected.
This does not necessarily mean "does not reflect, absorb, or emit light."
If somebody is behind a brick wall, I cannot visually detect them.
If somebody is wearing camouflage, and it is good enough, then I cannot visually detect them.
If my vision is impaired in various ways, then I cannot detect a person.
If my mind is impaired in various ways, then I cannot detect a person.

Consequently, the magic spell might:
-create a tangible (though flimsy) coating around the target that looks exactly like the background behind the person, thereby obstructing view while providing a means for the obstruction itself to be unnoticed.
-Change the target's coloration to exactly match whatever is behind them, thereby preventing visual detection.
-Impair the vision of anybody/everybody viewing the target in a number of ways, thereby preventing visual detection.
-Impair the mental abilities of anybody/everybody viewing the target in a number of ways, thereby preventing visual detection.

OR, as I've stated before, the person might simply be rendered undetectable as a direct result of the magic, rather than through any indirect means like the above. Like a cosmic cheat-code, there is no in-game explanation, it just happens.
Which I believe is the most likely way for magic to manifest, given its supernatural nature, and the definition of "supernatural" as being beyond scientific understanding.

OR it could be something simple, logical, and in accordance with physics as we know it... but something that nobody here in the forums has happened to think of.
"We handful of people have not imagined x" does not mean that x cannot exist. More importantly, it sure as hell does NOT mean that Y is necessarily the answer.
Whether or not anybody can come up with a superior answer to "the person is unaffected by light" does not mean that "the person is unaffected by light" is the answer. Just like the issue of whether or not anybody 10,000 years ago could imagine a better answer than "the world is flat" did not mean that the world actually was flat.

In correct; there are several ways to be unseen. There are not several ways of being undetectable using vision, within context of the spell, if there is one posit it. My explanation, that the target does not reflect, absorb nor emit light has much more explanatory power than yours, and does not contradict any part of the discription of the spell.

Yours above, behind a brick wall, does not make you undetectable with vision, if I happen to have X-ray vision, therefore it cannot be that, if it affects the mind of the observer as clearly stated before then the target should not be written as self. In order for your explanation to be "official" it has to account for the entire discription of the spell without contradicting any of it (like my explanation does btw).

Let me give an example, may clear things up.

According to my understanding of what you are saying, you cannot take a radiograph of a spell caster who is under the effect of invis:superior, I think the discription makes it clear that you cannot, maybe you disagree, please explain why. Now, x-ray's always harm humans, it can do damage anywhere from minute microspopic damage (not even 1 sdc) to causing massive burns quite quickly. According to the argument you are making the caster would be damaged by the x-rays while using the spell.

So far I don't think you can disagree with me.

So, if x-rays still harm the caster, let me explain how they harm the caster. They do so, by being absorbed and/or reflected by the tissues in the target's body, therefore, parts of the body that are more dense (bone for example) absorb more of the x-rays, therefore less x-rays will hit the film in the film tray. Because of this, where the caster has bones, the film will be less exposed (more black, this seems contradictory knowing what we know about radiographs, but when a dr. show's you your radiograph, he's actually showing the negative, that is why bones are white at that point) and tissues that are less dense, let's say the lungs, are more exposed (more white, again what you see in the end is the negative, so when the patient see's it, the lungs look black)

Therefore we have to conclude that because x-rays still harm the caster we can take a radiograph of him, or to rephrase that, we can detect the caster using invis suppior using x-ray optic devices, but paradoxically according to your explanation, we also cannot detect the caster.

Both cannot be true.

Let's rephrase one last time

Your argument: This statement is false.
just a word trick

My argument: this is clearly what the rules state in the context, though I cannot account for the mage being able to see while invisible (which it is not stated that he can by the way, therefore not a contradiction) my argument, at least up to this point must be more official.

You can use your house rule if you want, that's fine, at least admit it's a house rule.

[zaccheus]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

Not exactly, you are miscategorizing his argument. He's arguing that we take what we know about real world physics as far as we can to explain what the spell does, and hold off on the "it's magic" response when there is no other valid explanation, that does not mean it's equivelant to your "it's magic" explanation. Yours occurs much more earlier on in the explanation of the spell's effect then his, his making it possible to deduce an answer to the question originally posted, where your explanation provides no answer because "it's magic" could indicate that lasers do damage the caster just as easily as it could indicate that lasers do not damage the caster, plus the cognitive dissonence in your answer is much greater, it's been said before but I'll restate it. In your interpretation of the rule, someone using invis: superior would not set off an alarm using laser trip wires (like the one in that Cathrine Zeta Jones/Sean Connery movie) if he simply walked through them, however, if someone replaced the lasers in that scenerio with the emitters in a wilk's laser pistol and just rigged it up so the beam is constantly firing then the caster would trigger the alarm. It's glaringly inconsistent.

[Killer Cyborg]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

Not exactly, you are miscategorizing his argument. He's arguing that we take what we know about real world physics as far as we can to explain what the spell does, and hold off on the "it's magic" response when there is no other valid explanation, that does not mean it's equivelant to your "it's magic" explanation.

And I'm saying that our real-world physics knowledge may very well not apply in the first place, that there's no in-game reason to assume that light-bending is how magical invisibility works, and that holding off on the "it's magic" response accomplishes nothing other than:
a) Making him personally feel good
b) Needlessly complicating things.

Yours occurs much more earlier on in the explanation of the spell's effect then his, making it possible to deduce an answer to the question originally posted, where your explanation provides no answer because "it's magic" could indicate that lasers do damage the caster just as easily as it could indicate that lasers do not damage the caster, plus the cognitive dissonence in your answer is much greater, it's been said before but I'll restated it.

No, that answer does not allow for the invisible person to be immune to lasers, because the effects of the spell are limited to what the spell describes occurring, nothing less, nothing more.
And the invisibility spell(s) does not describe anybody being impervious to lasers.

In your interpretation of the rule, someone using invis: superior would not set off an alarm using laser trip wires (like the one in that Cathrine Zeta Jones/Sean Connery movie) if he simply walked through them, however, if someone replaced the lasers in that scerior with the emitters in a wilk's laser pistol and just rigged it up so the beam is constantly firing then the caster would trigger the alarm. It's glaringly inconsistent.

Actually, that question hasn't come up yet, so it hasn't been addressed yet.
It seems to assume that one could set up a mega-damage laser used in a weapon as a security device, but I don't think that's actually possible- the beam would have to be constant, and laser guns in Rifts can't do that sort of thing anymore.

But going with the hypothetical situation, I don't see the same inconsistency that you do.
All that would likely happen in that situation is that you would sustain damage from the laser, but the alarm would not go off.
Because the spell prevents you from being detected, not from being harmed.
Which may not make scientific sense to you, but it makes perfect sense magically.
In magic, things like intent come into play, as do other less-than-tangible, less-than-scientific qualities.

[keir451]

I would say that (IMO) the Invisibility spell does not render the caster immune to lasers. As for why, well that's harder to explain (if not impossible). My thought is that the spell shifts the casters visual spectrum slightly out of phase (for lack of a better idea) or it's simply a manifestation of a quasi quantum effect, i.e.; the caster is invisible to most forms of visual detection simply because the caster wants to be.
So the caster is visually undectebale, but still there physically. This means lasers, which do physical damage, can still interact with and hurt the caster if said caster is hit.
Of course this explanation could also be complete and pure Hogwash, thus making it invalid! Honestly I don't always bother trying to figure out HOW certain spells work and just say that they work and leave it at that.

[Killer Cyborg]

Just in case though, for clarity, the rule says the caster is undetectable using vision. Regardless why (magic or physical means) this explicitly means the caster does not reflect, absorb or emit light.

No, it just means that the caster (target) cannot be seen.

That is what undetectable means (with regard to vision, in theory it could also mean that the observer is blind, but with regards to invis this clearly isn't the case). If you have a different definition I'd like to hear it

It means you cannot be detected.
This does not necessarily mean "does not reflect, absorb, or emit light."
If somebody is behind a brick wall, I cannot visually detect them.
If somebody is wearing camouflage, and it is good enough, then I cannot visually detect them.
If my vision is impaired in various ways, then I cannot detect a person.
If my mind is impaired in various ways, then I cannot detect a person.

Consequently, the magic spell might:
-create a tangible (though flimsy) coating around the target that looks exactly like the background behind the person, thereby obstructing view while providing a means for the obstruction itself to be unnoticed.
-Change the target's coloration to exactly match whatever is behind them, thereby preventing visual detection.
-Impair the vision of anybody/everybody viewing the target in a number of ways, thereby preventing visual detection.
-Impair the mental abilities of anybody/everybody viewing the target in a number of ways, thereby preventing visual detection.

OR, as I've stated before, the person might simply be rendered undetectable as a direct result of the magic, rather than through any indirect means like the above. Like a cosmic cheat-code, there is no in-game explanation, it just happens.
Which I believe is the most likely way for magic to manifest, given its supernatural nature, and the definition of "supernatural" as being beyond scientific understanding.

OR it could be something simple, logical, and in accordance with physics as we know it... but something that nobody here in the forums has happened to think of.
"We handful of people have not imagined x" does not mean that x cannot exist. More importantly, it sure as hell does NOT mean that Y is necessarily the answer.
Whether or not anybody can come up with a superior answer to "the person is unaffected by light" does not mean that "the person is unaffected by light" is the answer. Just like the issue of whether or not anybody 10,000 years ago could imagine a better answer than "the world is flat" did not mean that the world actually was flat.

In correct; there are several ways to be unseen. There are not several ways of being undetectable using vision, within context of the spell, if there is one posit it.

Already have done so.
I bolded it for you.

My explanation, that the target does not reflect, absorb nor emit light has much more explanatory power than yours, and does not contradict any part of the discription of the spell.

I disagree. Your explanation only raises more questions, and contradicts the notion that the mage can engage in normal physical activities.

Yours above, behind a brick wall, does not make you undetectable with vision, if I happen to have X-ray vision,

Sure, if you happen to have a Heroes Unlimited super power that's not native to the game of Rifts, you can see through a brick wall.
The spells and power never discuss what happens if you try to use x-ray vision on an invisible person, so we really don't know what would happen.
So it may or may not be that.

if it affects the mind of the observer as clearly stated before then the target should not be written as self.

Radiate Horror Factor Target: Self. Instills horror in anybody viewing the target.
Aura of Power Target: Self (or others). Makes people believe that the target is more experienced and imposing than they really are.
Multiple Image Target: Self. Makes people see extra images of the target.
Armor Bizarre Target Self (or one other). Instills people seeing the target with fear.
Aura of Death Target: Self. Renders the target invisible to infrared, thermo-imaging, heat sensors, and all biological scanning systems that detect life, as well as any psionic senses that sense/detect life. People and animals looking at the character will see them as "dead" or "undead." Also blocks healing effects, etc.
And the mechanism here is explained. It's not that the spell warps infrared light, or that it drops the character down to room temperature, or anything else- the spell achieves all of these effects through one mechanism, by providing the character with an "aura of death" that "veils the character's life force."
Mask of Deceit Target: Self. Makes other people think that the caster looks like somebody else.
Sorcerous Fury Target: Self. Instills fear in others.

In order for your explanation to be "official" it has to account for the entire discription of the spell without contradicting any of it (like my explanation does btw).

And it does.

Let me give an example, may clear things up.
According to my understanding of what you are saying, you cannot take a radiograph of a spell caster who is under the effect of invis:superior, I think the discription makes it clear that you cannot, maybe you disagree, please explain why. Now, x-ray's always harm humans, it can do damage anywhere from minute microspopic damage (not even 1 sdc) to causing massive burns quite quickly. According to the argument you are making the caster would be damaged by the x-rays while using the spell.

So far I don't think you can disagree with me.

So, if x-rays still harm the caster, let me explain how they harm the caster. They do so, by being absorbed and/or reflected by the tissues in the target's body, therefore, parts of the body that are more dense (bone for example) absorb more of the x-rays, therefore less x-rays will hit the film in the film tray. Because of this, where the caster has bones, the film will be less exposed (more black, this seems contradictory knowing what we know about radiographs, but when a dr. show's you your radiograph, he's actually showing the negative, that is why bones are white at that point) and tissues that are less dense, let's say the lungs, are more exposed (more white, again what you see in the end is the negative, so when the patient see's it, the lungs look black)

Therefore we have to conclude that because x-rays still harm the caster we can take a radiograph of him, or to rephrase that, we can detect the caster using invis suppior using x-ray optic devices, but paradoxically according to your explanation, we also cannot detect the caster.

The bolded portion is untrue.
The magic makes you undetectable, so whether or not you are damaged, the radiograph would contain no image of you.

Both cannot be true.

Incorrect.
What you mean is that you cannot understand any way for a person to sustain damage from x-rays and to fail to leave an image in a radiograph.
This is not the same thing as the phenomena being impossible- reality (and the game world) are not restricted by your personal understanding of how things work.
(Nor by my own.)
Such an event, somebody being damaged by x-rays but failing to leave an image, would not make any sense scientifically or according to the laws of nature.
Welcome to the supernatural.

You can use your house rule if you want, that's fine, at least admit it's a house rule.

I'm going by the text as-written.
You are intuiting and assuming things that are not in the text.
So take your own advice- I'm going Rules As Written, you're not.

[flatline]

The caster's, techniquelly it wouldn't, but effectively he'd be blind being unable to absorb light, well blind in regards to the spectrums the spell operates in

And yet, the invisible person can see normally.
Which indicates that his/her eyes are able to absorb light normally.
Which indicates that he/she is able to absorb light normally overall.

Or he just sees magically.

This also works

It is clear to me that at some point, we're always going to have to concede that we don't know how a particular effect or sub-effect could be explained in physical terms which requires that we either reject the effect or allow "it's magic!" to be the explanation and move on.

So every GM will need to make a decision on what level of "it's magic" best meets the goals he has for his game. This decision will probably need to be made for every magical effect (spell, power, etc) that comes under scrutiny in the game.

Like any house rule, it should attempt to stay stable within the campaign, but not necessarily across campaigns (assuming players are properly informed of changes so that expectations can be properly set).

--flatline

[cornholioprime]

That does seem to be the problem, you think the spell defies logic and physical laws, that magic inherently violates both and those who disagree because they don't believe 'it's magic' works because it's not actually capable of providing an answer to valid questions and want a consistent explanation that requires the least amount of handwaving are somehow in the wrong for that.

I don't THINK that the spell defies logic and physical laws, I have already, repeatedly, proven it.

There are pages and pages on this thread with the people who want to insist 'It's magic it doesn't have to make sense!' telling those who disagree that they're wrong, some insisting those who disagree are stupid wrong for wanting something that makes sense to them and to have a simple actual explanation that they can use to answer questions not covered by the spell itself.

Then you need to actually prove your stance.

You need to get over the idea you seem to be entertaining, which is, apparently, that you will be allowed to pursue one specific means by which the invisibility spell achieves its effect -again, the one type of effect that will also, conveniently, allow the target to become partially or totally immune to lasers -hand-wave away all the rest of the inconvenient-to-explain parts of the spell, and then not get called on it.

"It's just magic, and doesn't conform to either logic or physical laws!" is a valid explanation, however 'lazy' you might personally think it is, for the totality of effects that Invisibility Spells achieve in the fictional Palladium setting.
HOWEVER, the series of 'explanations' offered by you and others thus far in terms of "it bends light" don't explain the rest of the effects of the spell.

The 'it's magic' side has kept insisting on that as an answer to the original question of 'does the spell provide protection from lasers', that clearly can't be an answer to that question that's an answer to 'what means of rendering one invisible is being discussed?'. That shouldn't be so hard to recognize and yet constantly 'it's magic' is given as an answer to a question that it isn't an answer to. It's like someone asking what time it is and telling them the bus runs every 15 minutes.

If you think that, then you've CLEARLY been missing the point of the response "it's magic" all this time, and over several pages of Threads.

The reason why "it's magic, the way that Spell-based Invisibility works" is ALSO an answer to "does this Invisibility stop lasers?" is because where one can show that the invisibility isn't (necessarily) achieved by simple light-bending, they can then go forward and say "Since there isn't any evidence that magic-based Spell Invisibility achieves its effects by simply bending light, you can't claim any total or even partial invincibility to laser beams."
They would thereafter tell the inquirer "I'm sorry, sir, but going by the simultaneous reality-warping, logically and scientifically inconsistent effects being accomplished, this spell ONLY does exactly what it says it does, no more, no less."

Even though as I pointed out and was ignored on earlier the books don't tell you what damage you can do with a laser rifle if you bash someone with it it only gives its laser damage and by the argument that 'nothing more than what's written in the books' means the laser rifle doesn't do any damage when you hit someone with it because no damage is listed.

Poor analogy.

REALLY poor analogy.

You might as well try to say that people can't be hurt with table legs, or rolling pins, or broken bottles, or thrown plates, or stones launched from a slingshot, simply because the Authors didn't take the time to establish damage values for every single potential weapon that could possibly exist.

[Killer Cyborg]

Book of Magic, p. 9
[Magic] makes the impossible, possible. Magic defies logic, and ignores the laws of physics (as we understand them)

Magic is not better than science and technology. It is different.

BoM, p. 16
Magic, on the other hand, defies scientific explanation

[Killer Cyborg]

The caster's, techniquelly it wouldn't, but effectively he'd be blind being unable to absorb light, well blind in regards to the spectrums the spell operates in

And yet, the invisible person can see normally.
Which indicates that his/her eyes are able to absorb light normally.
Which indicates that he/she is able to absorb light normally overall.

Or he just sees magically.

This also works

It is clear to me that at some point, we're always going to have to concede that we don't know how a particular effect or sub-effect could be explained in physical terms which requires that we either reject the effect or allow "it's magic!" to be the explanation and move on.

So every GM will need to make a decision on what level of "it's magic" best meets the goals he has for his game. This decision will probably need to be made for every magical effect (spell, power, etc) that comes under scrutiny in the game.

Like any house rule, it should attempt to stay stable within the campaign, but not necessarily across campaigns (assuming players are properly informed of changes so that expectations can be properly set).

--flatline

Well said.

[Ravenwing]

The caster's, techniquelly it wouldn't, but effectively he'd be blind being unable to absorb light, well blind in regards to the spectrums the spell operates in

And yet, the invisible person can see normally.
Which indicates that his/her eyes are able to absorb light normally.
Which indicates that he/she is able to absorb light normally overall.

Or he just sees magically.

This also works

It is clear to me that at some point, we're always going to have to concede that we don't know how a particular effect or sub-effect could be explained in physical terms which requires that we either reject the effect or allow "it's magic!" to be the explanation and move on.

So every GM will need to make a decision on what level of "it's magic" best meets the goals he has for his game. This decision will probably need to be made for every magical effect (spell, power, etc) that comes under scrutiny in the game.

Like any house rule, it should attempt to stay stable within the campaign, but not necessarily across campaigns (assuming players are properly informed of changes so that expectations can be properly set).

--flatline

Well said Flatline

But I would add, we also have to look at the Group of Players running under a GM.

Some players have a more scientific view on things. This is understandable, we live in the Real world, not a fantasy one, and Magic is generally not accepted as a real thing in our world. These players may not be able to wrap their minds around a make believe system that can defy all the known laws of Physics, science, whatever, and so they want an explanation that makes sense to them. Furthermore there is absolutely nothing wrong with a player who thinks this way!

Other players can easily wrap their minds around this concept, who knows why, maybe they just shrug it off as unimportant, maybe they just don't care, maybe they just readily accept that Magic, as in the frame work of the game, comes with more then a little handwaving. Who knows? How the player can do this isn't important.

I think perhaps that we've lost sight of that. Is either side wrong? No.

However demanding a scientific answer from a GM who accepts that magic works as written in the books isn't the right answer either. For one the GM probably doesn't understand why this is even coming up, or why this is important. The spell description says it does x, whats the problem?

Is this wrong? No. A GM that rules that spells work as the book says isn't taking anything from the players, nor is he being inconsistent, or unfair. By ruling that magic works as per the books, all the players have at the very least a point of reference for what the spell does in the game. How it does it isn't really important.

[flatline]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

Not exactly, you are miscategorizing his argument. He's arguing that we take what we know about real world physics as far as we can to explain what the spell does, and hold off on the "it's magic" response when there is no other valid explanation, that does not mean it's equivelant to your "it's magic" explanation.

And I'm saying that our real-world physics knowledge may very well not apply in the first place, that there's no in-game reason to assume that light-bending is how magical invisibility works, and that holding off on the "it's magic" response accomplishes nothing other than:
a) Making him personally feel good
b) Needlessly complicating things.

You could have more fairly written (b) as "he requires a more detailed explanation than is written in the books to be satisfied with the effect description".

--flatline

[Akashic Soldier]

Thank you for understanding Pry.

[Killer Cyborg]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

Not exactly, you are miscategorizing his argument. He's arguing that we take what we know about real world physics as far as we can to explain what the spell does, and hold off on the "it's magic" response when there is no other valid explanation, that does not mean it's equivelant to your "it's magic" explanation.

And I'm saying that our real-world physics knowledge may very well not apply in the first place, that there's no in-game reason to assume that light-bending is how magical invisibility works, and that holding off on the "it's magic" response accomplishes nothing other than:
a) Making him personally feel good
b) Needlessly complicating things.

You could have more fairly written (b) as "he requires a more detailed explanation than is written in the books to be satisfied with the effect description".

--flatline

That seems more like a PC way of saying (a).

[The Beast]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

Notice how he completely ignored Corny's question from a few posts back...

[Dr. Doom III]

Which means that there are two main ways that the Invisibility spells can be taken:
1. The magically render the target undetectable within certain parameters.
2. They magically warp light, rendering the target unseeable (to some or all light spectrums), AND the superior version also reduces sound, AND it negates radar, AND it negates the ability of others to smell them, AND so on... each via a separate means of negation along the lines of warping light.

Which explanation would you say is simplest and most straightforward?

2

lol
Feel free to explain how.

The superior version just adds stuff onto the simple version and the invisibility still works the same as everyone expects it to work.

Invisibility or any spell working like you would expect it to work is always the simplest way.

[Ravenwing]

Which means that there are two main ways that the Invisibility spells can be taken:
1. The magically render the target undetectable within certain parameters.
2. They magically warp light, rendering the target unseeable (to some or all light spectrums), AND the superior version also reduces sound, AND it negates radar, AND it negates the ability of others to smell them, AND so on... each via a separate means of negation along the lines of warping light.

Which explanation would you say is simplest and most straightforward?

2

lol
Feel free to explain how.

The superior version just adds stuff onto the simple version and the invisibility still works the same as everyone expects it to work.

Invisibility or any spell working like you would expect it to work is always the simplest way.

So your answer would be....It's magic and does what the book says?

[Killer Cyborg]

Which means that there are two main ways that the Invisibility spells can be taken:
1. The magically render the target undetectable within certain parameters.
2. They magically warp light, rendering the target unseeable (to some or all light spectrums), AND the superior version also reduces sound, AND it negates radar, AND it negates the ability of others to smell them, AND so on... each via a separate means of negation along the lines of warping light.

Which explanation would you say is simplest and most straightforward?

2

lol
Feel free to explain how.

The superior version just adds stuff onto the simple version and the invisibility still works the same as everyone expects it to work.

"Adding stuff" is not simpler.
It's actually kind of the reverse, as it adds complexity.
"Invisibility + Unsmellability + Radar Invisibility + Quietness + Foot-step Muddling + whatever else"
is a lot more complex than
"Undetectability"
You're requiring 6+ mechanisms, I'm requiring 1.
That's simpler.

Invisibility or any spell working like you would expect it to work is always the simplest way.

Agreed.
And I'd expect that the simplest way for the invisibility spells is to make you undetectable as described by the spells.
NOT to make you undetectable as described by the spells, for reasons that aren't mentioned anywhere in the spells, which cause complications that aren't mentioned in the spells, which are negated by other factors that aren't in the spells.
The simplest way to have the spells work is to take them as they're written, without projecting any kind of modern-day scientific assumptions about one way that invisibility might work, and to assume that it's the only way it might work, and then to either deal with or handwave the consequent problems that arise.

[Nightmask]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

Notice how he completely ignored Corny's question from a few posts back...

I'm ignoring everything in this thread from now on, there's no point in responding to people who not only are completely ignoring the original point of the thread but aren't interested in actually acknowledging any points outside of their own and simply want to browbeat others into telling them what they want to hear. So do skip the 'he didn't respond that must mean we're right' fallacy, the correct answer is 'he's not going to bother responding to people who aren't actually going to respond with anything other than "you have to say I'm right because my fallacy says I am' ".

[Ravenwing]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

Notice how he completely ignored Corny's question from a few posts back...

I'm ignoring everything in this thread from now on, there's no point in responding to people who not only are completely ignoring the original point of the thread but aren't interested in actually acknowledging any points outside of their own and simply want to browbeat others into telling them what they want to hear. So do skip the 'he didn't respond that must mean we're right' fallacy, the correct answer is 'he's not going to bother responding to people who aren't actually going to respond with anything other than "you have to say I'm right because my fallacy says I am' ".

Strange since that seems to be how you do things.
Ignore what you don't want to hear+ insult the poster+ dismiss facts and logic+ never admit when your wrong.

We've all answered the Original Post numerous times. It's just not what you want to hear.

[Nightmask]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

Notice how he completely ignored Corny's question from a few posts back...

I'm ignoring everything in this thread from now on, there's no point in responding to people who not only are completely ignoring the original point of the thread but aren't interested in actually acknowledging any points outside of their own and simply want to browbeat others into telling them what they want to hear. So do skip the 'he didn't respond that must mean we're right' fallacy, the correct answer is 'he's not going to bother responding to people who aren't actually going to respond with anything other than "you have to say I'm right because my fallacy says I am' ".

Strange since that seems to be how you do things.
Ignore what you don't want to hear+ insult the poster+ dismiss facts and logic+ never admit when your wrong.

We've all answered the Original Post numerous times. It's just not what you want to hear.

I apparently need a tagline expansion to include 'don't go ascribing to me the fallacies you engage in'. I insulted no one, 'It's magic' as a response is not fact or logic, have not ignored anyone on anything and because I'm not wrong (since 'it's magic' does not and never has been a valid answer to 'will invisibility protect against lasers') I'm certainly not going to admit to something that isn't so.

So no, your only answer to the original poster was 'It's magic it doesn't have to make sense or be explained', when his question required one actually answer the question, and that's all your side has kept saying. Well that and 'Don't go asking questions or trying to explain magic or triple damage for your character and he stops believing in the magic he's used all his life'.

[Dr. Doom III]

Which means that there are two main ways that the Invisibility spells can be taken:
1. The magically render the target undetectable within certain parameters.
2. They magically warp light, rendering the target unseeable (to some or all light spectrums), AND the superior version also reduces sound, AND it negates radar, AND it negates the ability of others to smell them, AND so on... each via a separate means of negation along the lines of warping light.

Which explanation would you say is simplest and most straightforward?

2

lol
Feel free to explain how.

The superior version just adds stuff onto the simple version and the invisibility still works the same as everyone expects it to work.

"Adding stuff" is not simpler.
It's actually kind of the reverse, as it adds complexity.
"Invisibility + Unsmellability + Radar Invisibility + Quietness + Foot-step Muddling + whatever else"
is a lot more complex than
"Undetectability"
You're requiring 6+ mechanisms, I'm requiring 1.
That's simpler.

Invisibility or any spell working like you would expect it to work is always the simplest way.

Agreed.
And I'd expect that the simplest way for the invisibility spells is to make you undetectable as described by the spells.
NOT to make you undetectable as described by the spells, for reasons that aren't mentioned anywhere in the spells, which cause complications that aren't mentioned in the spells, which are negated by other factors that aren't in the spells.
The simplest way to have the spells work is to take them as they're written, without projecting any kind of modern-day scientific assumptions about one way that invisibility might work, and to assume that it's the only way it might work, and then to either deal with or handwave the consequent problems that arise.

Of course it adds complexity. That's why it's higher level. It's more complex.

The simplest way they can work is however you think they work not some contrived reason just to be more mysterious because that’s just silly.

[Nightmask]

Number 2 does have the valid response of 'the magic compensates', just as a sufficiently high-tech version of invisibility would...

And how exactly IS that?
What IS the mechanism for compensation?
I believe that I asked you this before, and you declined to answer for some reason.
Perhaps because the answer nets out as "it's magic!" or "It just does!"... the exact same kind of answer that you're railing so hard against in this thread.

Not exactly, you are miscategorizing his argument. He's arguing that we take what we know about real world physics as far as we can to explain what the spell does, and hold off on the "it's magic" response when there is no other valid explanation, that does not mean it's equivelant to your "it's magic" explanation. Yours occurs much more earlier on in the explanation of the spell's effect then his, his making it possible to deduce an answer to the question originally posted, where your explanation provides no answer because "it's magic" could indicate that lasers do damage the caster just as easily as it could indicate that lasers do not damage the caster, plus the cognitive dissonence in your answer is much greater, it's been said before but I'll restate it. In your interpretation of the rule, someone using invis: superior would not set off an alarm using laser trip wires (like the one in that Cathrine Zeta Jones/Sean Connery movie) if he simply walked through them, however, if someone replaced the lasers in that scenerio with the emitters in a wilk's laser pistol and just rigged it up so the beam is constantly firing then the caster would trigger the alarm. It's glaringly inconsistent.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Just because it's a magical spell doesn't mean it's required to violate every law of physics or that it's less magical for operating as much as possible within physical laws. But I'm pretty much being used as the scapegoat it would seem as there's little to no response to anyone else making the same points I am, just reams and reams of posts attacking mine as I make a more obvious target.

[Ravenwing]

[quote="Nightmask"
I apparently need a tagline expansion to include 'don't go ascribing to me the fallacies you engage in'. I insulted no one, 'It's magic' as a response is not fact or logic, have not ignored anyone on anything and because I'm not wrong (since 'it's magic' does not and never has been a valid answer to 'will invisibility protect against lasers') I'm certainly not going to admit to something that isn't so.

So no, your only answer to the original poster was 'It's magic it doesn't have to make sense or be explained', when his question required one actually answer the question, and that's all your side has kept saying. Well that and 'Don't go asking questions or trying to explain magic or triple damage for your character and he stops believing in the magic he's used all his life'.[/quote]

Or we could have lied and said.

"Yes! Your absolutely correct that a spell must conform to your extremely limited point of view. which btw means you get an added bonus that was not intended by the spell! Total Score dude! Now that you've twinked out that spell, lets see what else we can twink!"

Sorry that's the incorrect answer.

The spell works like it says in the book. Period. No more, no less. The hang up for the other side is the spell name. If it was labeled 'Undetectable' this thread would never have gone beyond page two.

but no, it's labeled Invisibility:Superior, and because it is, it must therefore conform, because invisibility is a vision based thing. Even though the spell doesn't effect vision alone. It effects all senses. Thats what it does. It makes you undetectable.