Forums of the Megaverse®

1996, Dragons and Gods page 52 "Elementals are greater supernatural beings"

2010, Heroes of the Megaverse page 38 "beings like dragons, Faerie Folk, sphinx, Elementals, etc. are NOT supernatural beings"

I'm just grabbing wildly at a couple contradicting examples I found, and would like to know if anyone could fill in any gaps in regard to this 14 year span which might indicate if this transition happened any earlier.

Also, are there any publications after 2010 which have continued to refer to Elementals as Supernatural Beings as they used to be, or have all post-2010 ones transitioned to calling them Creatures of Magic now?

I love Fairies and Sphinx, they never have problems like Dragons/Elementals dipping their toes in both pools across decades like this.

given there are a fairly large number of sources that indicate or clearly define elementals as being supernatural beings, i'd expect either a clear statement of errata (ie "we are changing this previous rule, here is the new one") or the new rule being in at least a few places without the old rule continuing to show up before i would consider the lone reference to not being supernatural as anything more than a mistake.

Somewhat related, 2002's Dark Conversions page 20 ("Jinn, The Elemental Demon")

"Jinn are evil, mischevious creatures of magic linked to Elemental Forces"
"These supernatural beings"
"Like True Elementals"

2007's Hades 73 appears to have removed the "These supernatural beings" line and kept the "creatures of magic" one, but page 11's "Hades, home of demons" repeatedly refers to demons as supernatural beings (so does page 31) and the table of contents still lists Jinn as Greater Demons.

Conversion Book Revised also maintains a dual nature about the Nymphs.
*pg 122 "These strange supernatural beings are among the most mysterious and mystical of the faerie folk."
*pg 123 "Considered a creature of magic"

Sometimes "supernatural" is being used in the technical sense unique to Palladium's categories of beings. Sometimes it is used in the common sense of "beyond natural" or "above natural." Annoying, but that's Palladium editing for you.

Kevin 'George Lucas's twin brother' Siembiada is known for the retconium poisoning and not-paying-attention-to-own-work-itis.
This is why GM's of any palladium game tend to have strong stomachs and the patience of saints.
That being said, 25 years and counting running Rifts... gawds help me.

Shark_Force wrote: i'd expect either a clear statement of errata (ie "we are changing this previous rule, here is the new one")

Aha-ha - ha - HA - HA - HA - HA - HA - HA

Shark_Force wrote:i'd expect either a clear statement of errata (ie "we are changing this previous rule, here is the new one")

That is... ambitious.

For me, elementals are supernatural beings, with the guideline being "If I kill it, will it leave a corpse?" Elementals will not, so they are supernatural. Dragons will, so they're creatures of magic.

Mark Hall wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:i'd expect either a clear statement of errata (ie "we are changing this previous rule, here is the new one")

That is... ambitious.

For me, elementals are supernatural beings, with the guideline being "If I kill it, will it leave a corpse?" Elementals will not, so they are supernatural. Dragons will, so they're creatures of magic.

Osirus is a god, and stated to be supernatural, but left a corpse.

Khanibal wrote:

Shark_Force wrote: i'd expect either a clear statement of errata (ie "we are changing this previous rule, here is the new one")

Aha-ha - ha - HA - HA - HA - HA - HA - HA

hence the "or" part, where there is a pattern of the new rule showing up rather than a single instance.

so, for example, we could have something like the definition of RCC changing in a clearly stated deliberate change in how it was being used, which actually did happen in one of the books (i think in the RUE dog boy OCC description, though it could've been elsewhere). or, we could see something like "two attacks for living" being updated simply by being used on a regular basis rather than an explicit statement that "two attacks for living" is now a thing (or at least, i don't recall reading any specific mention of it being a thing... if there is one, then i guess we can just add that as evidence to show that while clear errata is not *often* given, it is given *sometimes*)

Shark_Force wrote:

Khanibal wrote:

Shark_Force wrote: i'd expect either a clear statement of errata (ie "we are changing this previous rule, here is the new one")

Aha-ha - ha - HA - HA - HA - HA - HA - HA

hence the "or" part, where there is a pattern of the new rule showing up rather than a single instance.

so, for example, we could have something like the definition of RCC changing in a clearly stated deliberate change in how it was being used, which actually did happen in one of the books (i think in the RUE dog boy OCC description, though it could've been elsewhere). or, we could see something like "two attacks for living" being updated simply by being used on a regular basis rather than an explicit statement that "two attacks for living" is now a thing (or at least, i don't recall reading any specific mention of it being a thing... if there is one, then i guess we can just add that as evidence to show that while clear errata is not *often* given, it is given *sometimes*)

There are many examples of things just changing without being told they are changed. Shadow updates happen. Take the blind warrior women, in Atlantis they originally had a innate clone ability to reproduce, later it was changed to one that required a biowizard to clone them in D-bees of NA.

Changing an elemental from SN to CoM is not really a significant change, like the two attacks for being alive was. CoM have many things in common with SN for the most part it is a flavor distinction.

Blue_Lion wrote:Shadow updates happen. Take the blind warrior women, in Atlantis they originally had a innate clone ability to reproduce, later it was changed to one that required a biowizard to clone them in D-bees of NA.

I'm not sure this is necessarily as absolute as you think. Omission isn't negation. Compare:

WB2p51:

There are no blind warrior men and the women are sterile.
The Altarains reproduce through an unusual means of cloning.
The cloning process can be artificially initiated and controlled in a laboratory or the women can undergo a strange, natural(?) process of cloning.

WB30p17:

Altara women are sterile.
They are reproduced by the Splugorth through an unusual means of cloning.

Them being described as sterile isn't a cancellation since that was always there, as was the Splugorth manipulating their cloning through artificial initiation and laboratory control.

WB30 had a lot of ground to cover so they could have chosen to abbreviate certain details about elaborate races to make room for others. I don't see anything in the statement here which says the "strange, natural(?) process" is no longer an option for them. Someone playing solely from this book just wouldn't be aware of it without checking the earlier books.

This is a major plot device for an NPC in Rifts Mercenaries (page 91):

The only people she cares anything for are her clone daughters. Ever since she started the mission, she has secretly "given birth" to three clones of herself. Myriam is usually fertile and she knows that if her clones are discovered, she will be destroyed or worse, studied in Atlantean laboratories.

Hesitant to discard it simply for lack of mention (cut for space) without an explicit cancellation.

Axelmania wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:Shadow updates happen. Take the blind warrior women, in Atlantis they originally had a innate clone ability to reproduce, later it was changed to one that required a biowizard to clone them in D-bees of NA.

I'm not sure this is necessarily as absolute as you think. Omission isn't negation. Compare:

WB2p51:

There are no blind warrior men and the women are sterile.
The Altarains reproduce through an unusual means of cloning.
The cloning process can be artificially initiated and controlled in a laboratory or the women can undergo a strange, natural(?) process of cloning.

WB30p17:

Altara women are sterile.
They are reproduced by the Splugorth through an unusual means of cloning.

Them being described as sterile isn't a cancellation since that was always there, as was the Splugorth manipulating their cloning through artificial initiation and laboratory control.

WB30 had a lot of ground to cover so they could have chosen to abbreviate certain details about elaborate races to make room for others. I don't see anything in the statement here which says the "strange, natural(?) process" is no longer an option for them. Someone playing solely from this book just wouldn't be aware of it without checking the earlier books.

This is a major plot device for an NPC in Rifts Mercenaries (page 91):

The only people she cares anything for are her clone daughters. Ever since she started the mission, she has secretly "given birth" to three clones of herself. Myriam is usually fertile and she knows that if her clones are discovered, she will be destroyed or worse, studied in Atlantean laboratories.

Hesitant to discard it simply for lack of mention (cut for space) without an explicit cancellation.

It was rewritten to make the spugorth the source of the reproduction, while dropping the line about the natural cloning. So in that case its removal omission was a change. As it started by changing it from lab to spugorth, and removed any reference to natural cloning.(the listing in Dbees was not a reprint but an update.)

Omitting details can be done with the intent of saving space rather than to out-law what was omitted. There is no reason to assume it is the latter reason.

Axelmania wrote:Omitting details can be done with the intent of saving space rather than to out-law what was omitted. There is no reason to assume it is the latter reason.

Not talking about something to save space is would be an omition.
When you update something and change the wording to limit what is said to do it or not list something, that is a reason to assume it was changed.

By your logic all TWs still have carpentry and automobile mechanics as OCCs skills as ommititng it from the update is not the same as changing/removing it.

**When a game updates/revises something unless the update says other wise the entire unrevised text becomes non-canon. An updated OCC makes the un-updated non canon a revised book makes the unrevised book non canon.

It is also possible that Elementals could be BOTH.
There is not, as far as I am aware of anything preventing something from being a Supernatural Creature of Magic.
It would not be a common state of affairs true... but it might be the case if something is described as both.

Blue_Lion wrote:Not talking about something to save space is would be an omition.

That ... SEEMS close to what I said. As best I can understand you.

Blue_Lion wrote:When you update something and change the wording to limit what is said to do it or not list something, that is a reason to assume it was changed.

Changes are a reason to assume something was changed? Please rephrase with fewer ambiguous pronouns.

Blue_Lion wrote:By your logic all TWs still have carpentry and automobile mechanics as OCCs skills as ommititng it from the update is not the same as changing/removing it.

RMB 90 / RUE 128, I understand the argument you are making. I personally view this as 2 options for Techno-Wizards for people to play. RUE doesn't say you can't play the old version if you wish, it just introduces a new version most people would prefer to use, since Mechanical Engineer is a rarer skill than Carpentry.

Regardless of your views there, we can distinguish between clear additions/removals from a distinct list and coming up with unique abbreviated descriptions for previously printed D-Bees.

For example, New West discusses the Simvan. If there was something written about the Simvan in New West which isn't reprinted in WB30, do you think that WB14 is no longer canon in respect to that race because of WB30 not reprinting it?

Can't exactly hold different standards for 2>30 and 14>30.

Blue_Lion wrote:**When a game updates/revises something unless the update says other wise the entire unrevised text becomes non-canon. An updated OCC makes the un-updated non canon a revised book makes the unrevised book non canon.

WB30 is not a revised book of anything. The Altara are not an OCC.

WB30 also discusses the Cyber-Horsemen on page 52, a race which had been talked about more extensively in Rifts Canada.

Do you think any information in Canada about centaurs not reprinted in D-Bees of North America is no longer canon?

eliakon wrote:It is also possible that Elementals could be BOTH.
There is not, as far as I am aware of anything preventing something from being a Supernatural Creature of Magic.
It would not be a common state of affairs true... but it might be the case if something is described as both.

This is the compromise I like.

Heroes of the Megaverse technically says "beings like" and also "elementals" but not "all elementals" so it's possible that only SOME (unspecified type of) Elementals are not supernatural.

When something is talked about in a update in a way that limits the sources then that is a change to limit it to the update.
(That clear you do seam to have a history of lack of understanding how revision works in games.)

Your stance on the two versions of TW is not cannon. It comes from ignoring the revision process. Every thing in the old book has been decanonized. It is not valid. The fact you are showing a inability to acknowledge this in your post means that further debate is a waste of time.

WB30 in no way "limits the sources". Page 17 says "reproduced by the Splugorth" not "reproduced ONLY by the Splugorth".

Your stance on the two versions of TW is not cannon

Nor is your stance. The canon hasn't made a declaration one way or the other as to whether we can use just 1 or both 2.

Every thing in the old book has been canonized. It is not valid.

Assuming you meant DEcanonized, I'm looking for EXplicit decanonization. You are relying on the assumption of IMplicit decanonization, which I refuse to accept.

Axelmania wrote:WB30 in no way "limits the sources". Page 17 says "reproduced by the Splugorth" not "reproduced ONLY by the Splugorth".

Your stance on the two versions of TW is not cannon

Nor is your stance. The canon hasn't made a declaration one way or the other as to whether we can use just 1 or both 2.

Every thing in the old book has been canonized. It is not valid.

Assuming you meant DEcanonized, I'm looking for EXplicit decanonization. You are relying on the assumption of IMplicit decanonization, which I refuse to accept.

Either you can not understand/accept the revision process or are trolling. Either way this is done.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:i'd expect either a clear statement of errata (ie "we are changing this previous rule, here is the new one")

That is... ambitious.

For me, elementals are supernatural beings, with the guideline being "If I kill it, will it leave a corpse?" Elementals will not, so they are supernatural. Dragons will, so they're creatures of magic.

Osirus is a god, and stated to be supernatural, but left a corpse.

And if just bringing his parts back together resurrects him then he really isnt dead nor a corpse right?

Does it say that merely uniting the parts would resurrect him? I figured Isis intended to use a resurrection spell or a resurrection deific ability, child's play for her.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Axelmania wrote:WB30 in no way "limits the sources". Page 17 says "reproduced by the Splugorth" not "reproduced ONLY by the Splugorth".

Your stance on the two versions of TW is not cannon

Nor is your stance. The canon hasn't made a declaration one way or the other as to whether we can use just 1 or both 2.

Every thing in the old book has been canonized. It is not valid.

Assuming you meant DEcanonized, I'm looking for EXplicit decanonization. You are relying on the assumption of IMplicit decanonization, which I refuse to accept.

Either you can not understand/accept the revision process or are trolling. Either way this is done.

If you can tell me where the books define how the revision process works, I'll accept your argument. Otherwise, you are house-ruling based on your personal opinions and not relying on the canon to define how it interacts.

Khanibal wrote:Aha-ha - ha - HA - HA - HA - HA - HA - HA

I read this aloud, I can't stop now, i'll come back and read the rest of this thread when I can do it without bursting into manic laughter