Forums of the Megaverse®

So I was flipping around in DB2 and noticed on 74:
*in the left column the PS has "(supernatural)" after it
*further down, "Natural abilities: Supernatural strength and endurance" affirming the former and adding something.

The right column refers to Royal Kreeghor as:
*a sub-species of the kreeghor race
*a sub-race of supernatural monsters

It seems like the kreeghor overall, rather than merely the royal kreeghor, are being called "supernatural monsters"

Page 99 though, on Cosmo-Knights:
*"kreeghor, wolfen, and noro have all been chosen"
*"only exceptions are supernatural creatures like dragons, demons and the promethean race"

Would this mean supernatural monsters like the kreeghor are unlike dragons/demons/prometheans, not so much because they are not supernatural, but because they lack natural abilities like teleportation which all 3 of those supernatural creatures have?

In that respect, sub-demons like Gurgoyles would also be unlike dragons/demons/prometheans since they also can't teleport inherently, but are still supernatural monsters.

It means that Royal Kreeghor are supernatural, nothing else.

Also you shouldn't be using SNPS as the determining factor if something's a supernatural creature due to Palladium's complete lack of restricting that strength category to only supernatural creatures.

I wasn't relying on PS/PE, just noted it.

I think with "sub-race of supernatural monsters" that SR is the RK while SM is the Kreeghor.

If BOTH only referred to Royal Kreeghor, shouldn't it be worded "a sub-race and supernatural monsters"?

"of" is "in respect to" so "supernatural monsters" placement in sentence reads like this is the race they are the sub-race of.

Axelmania wrote:I wasn't relying on PS/PE, just noted it.

I think with "sub-race of supernatural monsters" that SR is the RK while SM is the Kreeghor.

If BOTH only referred to Royal Kreeghor, shouldn't it be worded "a sub-race and supernatural monsters"?

"of" is "in respect to" so "supernatural monsters" placement in sentence reads like this is the race they are the sub-race of.

The "sub race of supernatural monsters" is the Royal Khreegor which are a sub race of the Khreegor race.
The book is perfectly gramatically fine in statining that they are subraces twice.
The way it ends up is this
A is a B of C
A is also D
That does not make D=C nor C=B
It simply tells us that not only is it a subrace, it is a subrace of supernatural monsters.
This is pretty self apparent since the Khreegor themselves are not described as supernatural and more over they are repeatedly described as engaging in things that are prohibited to the supernatural.

Thus we have two choice
A) that the Khreegor are not supernatural, only their subrace is
or
B) That a single questionable sentence that can be interpreted either way is proof that all other material on the race, cosmo-knights, etc is wrong

Occams Razor is pretty obvious here.

eliakon wrote:The way it ends up is this
A is a B of C
A is also D
That does not make D=C nor C=B

"D" is an oversimplification. Review:

a sub-species of the kreeghor race
a sub-race of supernatural monsters

If you want to abbreviate that:

A is a SS of TKR
A is a SR of SMs.

"Kreeghor" is defined as a "race" in the first case, so "sub-race" would clearly be referencing that.

"Supernatural monsters" itself is not a RACE, so that phrase sounds like it must be referencing the kreeghor race.

eliakon wrote:they are repeatedly described as engaging in things that are prohibited to the supernatural.
..
That a single questionable sentence that can be interpreted either way is proof that all other material on the race, cosmo-knights, etc is wrong

The problem with the cosmo-knight statement is that it can be read not as a universal block against all supernatural creatures, but rather as against ones LIKE the listed examples. IE supernatural teleports or supernatural shapeshifters. The basis of "like" is not established.

If for example I wrote "the wilderness scout makes MDC armor out of the flesh of MDC creatures like Fury Beetles" this wouldn't necessarily mean they make MDC armor out of all MDC creatures, it probably means ones "like" FBs, who are similarly low-IQ non-sentient monsters who there are fewer ethical problems with killing.

I say No.
Just really strong aliens.

Why? For all or just the normals and the Royals are supernatural?

Which begs the question: if Royal Kreeghor invaded Rifts Earth and were killed, would they reincarnate on the Kreeghor Homeworld in 20 years?

Axelmania wrote:So I was flipping around in DB2 and noticed on 74:
*in the left column the PS has "(supernatural)" after it
*further down, "Natural abilities: Supernatural strength and endurance" affirming the former and adding something.

The right column refers to Royal Kreeghor as:
*a sub-species of the kreeghor race
*a sub-race of supernatural monsters

It seems like the kreeghor overall, rather than merely the royal kreeghor, are being called "supernatural monsters"

Page 99 though, on Cosmo-Knights:
*"kreeghor, wolfen, and noro have all been chosen"
*"only exceptions are supernatural creatures like dragons, demons and the promethean race"

Would this mean supernatural monsters like the kreeghor are unlike dragons/demons/prometheans, not so much because they are not supernatural, but because they lack natural abilities like teleportation which all 3 of those supernatural creatures have?

In that respect, sub-demons like Gurgoyles would also be unlike dragons/demons/prometheans since they also can't teleport inherently, but are still supernatural monsters.

This seems pretty simple to me. The Royal Kreegor writeup says they are Supernatural Monsters, in a GM's note that makes it unabigous that Royal Kreegor are Supernatural. It's a bit vauge as to how this came to be, but was likely the intervention of a higher power. Most Likely the Dweller

So regular Kreegor have Supernatural PS but are not supernatural the same way a lot of phase world races are MDC with SN PS without being supernatural, while the Royals are Kreegor who have been turned into Supernatural Beings by the Dweller. The Dweller also has Witches, but these are distinct, as it notes that both Royal and Regular Kreegor can be Witches.

The Cosmo Knight says Kreegor have been Cosmo Knights. So clearly, Regular Kreegor can be, but it doesn't say Royal Kreegor have been, and the Royal Kreegor are definatly noted to be a sub-species, only cousins to regular Kreegor.

And then I throw all that away by noting once again that CJ calls all Creatures of Magic supernatural, and that by RUE's definition Royal kreegor are now recatagorized as Creatures of Magic, because they have definate lifespans.

I can't wait for these Rifts monster manuals to come out so we all can argue over the next batch of creatures that get flip-flopped between CoM and SNB.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:then I throw all that away by noting once again that CJ calls all Creatures of Magic supernatural, and that by RUE's definition Royal kreegor are now recatagorized as Creatures of Magic, because they have definate lifespans.

Well... you can just be an MDC being who is neither of those... I don't think Kreeghor are suddenly punching Zavors and splitting them.

Axelmania wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:then I throw all that away by noting once again that CJ calls all Creatures of Magic supernatural, and that by RUE's definition Royal kreegor are now recatagorized as Creatures of Magic, because they have definate lifespans.

Well... you can just be an MDC being who is neither of those... I don't think Kreeghor are suddenly punching Zavors and splitting them.

I said Royal Kreegor are CoM, not regular Kreegor. Regulars are just micellanious MDC being.

Yeah but they're never called creatures of magic... there's really no basis for declaring supernatural beings with lifespans are suddenly CoM.

Axelmania wrote:Yeah but they're never called creatures of magic... there's really no basis for declaring supernatural beings with lifespans are suddenly CoM.

The fact that Supernatural beings are defined as being immortal and CoM are defined as being mortal as their primary distinction is a pretty firm basis for asserting mortal magical beings are CoM.

You're referencing the spellcasting abilities for "magical being", I guess? What about the Yhabbayar Bubble Mystics?

Axelmania wrote:You're referencing the spellcasting abilities for "magical being", I guess? What about the Yhabbayar Bubble Mystics?

Innate spellcasting is one common feature for a Magical being, but no, it's possible to be a magical being without having spellcasting: Gryphon's are one cannonical example. They are explictly labeled creatures of magic, yet have no magical or psionic abilities whatever.

Being a CoM is something you are, not something you have, or something you do. The only thing it means is something in your DNA naturally manages to channel magic, in the Gryphons case, the only thing they have is the ability to naturally see in Total Darkness (Not nightvision, but as in not needing any form of light whatsoever, not even UV or Infared). but that one single ability is enough to define them as magical beings.

What I am asking isn't so much "do you need innate spellcasting to be creature of magic?" so much as "do you consider any mortal race with innate spellcasting to be a creature of magic?"

Where the water is muddied, with creatures like the Yhabbayar, is perhaps it may not be clear whether they are born with spellcasting, or if they all simply choose to pursue the same form of magical training but it is assumed to have been acquired by adulthood through study?

Do you think the Yhabbayar are like England 58's Cernun Mystic RCC. They have an average life span of 380 years, are explicitly "supernatural creatures" and "intelligent creatures of magic".

Do we have either term being used for Yhabbayar? Are babies also Bubble Mystics?

Axelmania wrote:What I am asking isn't so much "do you need innate spellcasting to be creature of magic?" so much as "do you consider any mortal race with innate spellcasting to be a creature of magic?"

Where the water is muddied, with creatures like the Yhabbayar, is perhaps it may not be clear whether they are born with spellcasting, or if they all simply choose to pursue the same form of magical training but it is assumed to have been acquired by adulthood through study?

Do you think the Yhabbayar are like England 58's Cernun Mystic RCC. They have an average life span of 380 years, are explicitly "supernatural creatures" and "intelligent creatures of magic".

Do we have either term being used for Yhabbayar? Are babies also Bubble Mystics?

Lets see what the text says.

Only the Yhabbayar have this ability, because their alien brains have a different form and function, and are better equipped to imagine the dimensions of space, time, magic and mind.

Also their magic abilities say "As a Mystic", while their Psionic powers are discribed as "innate"

So the Yhabbayar are apparently a quirky case. They don't channel magic as a function of DNA, so much as their DNA means they come out of the womb with the Mystic OCC pre-programmed into their brain.

So no, they are not Creatures of Magic, but they are born with the ability to cast magic because the Mystic OCC is littearlly preprogrammed into them. Which is not quite the same thing. In one, your DNA channels magic naturally as part of your biology. In the other, your brain just comes with instictive racial knowledge.

This is interesting. I can see a Gene Splicer experimenting on one to see if they can figure out how to make other complex OCC skills be genetically passed on.

Aren't psychic powers always described as innate? Also being "as a mystic" doesn't mean "they took the mystic OCC", they might be born with equivalents.

Silhouettes also come to mind, as well as Phantoms and True Naruni.

In many cases I don't know how to take "average life span" regarding mortality, since you could assign averages for non-aging species who never die of old age but tend to get killed after so many centuries of activity. Seeing a 'maximum life span' would probably be rare.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Axelmania wrote:What I am asking isn't so much "do you need innate spellcasting to be creature of magic?" so much as "do you consider any mortal race with innate spellcasting to be a creature of magic?"

Where the water is muddied, with creatures like the Yhabbayar, is perhaps it may not be clear whether they are born with spellcasting, or if they all simply choose to pursue the same form of magical training but it is assumed to have been acquired by adulthood through study?

Do you think the Yhabbayar are like England 58's Cernun Mystic RCC. They have an average life span of 380 years, are explicitly "supernatural creatures" and "intelligent creatures of magic".

Do we have either term being used for Yhabbayar? Are babies also Bubble Mystics?

Lets see what the text says.

Only the Yhabbayar have this ability, because their alien brains have a different form and function, and are better equipped to imagine the dimensions of space, time, magic and mind.

Also their magic abilities say "As a Mystic", while their Psionic powers are discribed as "innate"

So the Yhabbayar are apparently a quirky case. They don't channel magic as a function of DNA, so much as their DNA means they come out of the womb with the Mystic OCC pre-programmed into their brain.

So no, they are not Creatures of Magic, but they are born with the ability to cast magic because the Mystic OCC is littearlly preprogrammed into them. Which is not quite the same thing. In one, your DNA channels magic naturally as part of your biology. In the other, your brain just comes with instictive racial knowledge.

This is interesting. I can see a Gene Splicer experimenting on one to see if they can figure out how to make other complex OCC skills be genetically passed on.

That makes me ask myself how would a Cernun Mystic from Rifts: England fit or not in that kind of equation/definitions.