Vampires Under Other Suns

[Natasha]

The generally accepted definition is the star around which planets and other celestial bodies in system revolve around. This would mean, so long as you are in a solar system with a star, it would effect you. Sinse we know distant stars in the sky do not, then once you are out of it's system, it no longer will

Dat realization that the vampire intelligence Pluto (CB2p99) was probably behind the declassification of Pluto as a planet in an effort to redraw the boudnaries of the solar system so our sun's light could no longer harm vampires there so that he could build a secret outpost there.

Unknown probably made a deal with Brulyx and is amassing Reigners on that icy rock since cold prevents their decomposition, ready to rift them into Earth as needed.

This does raise the interesting question of what is the boundary of the solar system. Both gravitation and intensity are inverse squares.

[Saitou Hajime]

It may be worth noting that the suns of other dimentions still affect vampires such as Palladium and Hades certianly seem to and are implied to have different physics to their worlds.

[taalismn]

It may be worth noting that the suns of other dimentions still affect vampires such as Palladium and Hades certianly seem to and are implied to have different physics to their worlds.

Can the light in Hades be said to originate from a sun/star, or is it just ambient light? I'm not quite sure of the sky arrangement in Hades.

[Nightmask]

It may be worth noting that the suns of other dimentions still affect vampires such as Palladium and Hades certianly seem to and are implied to have different physics to their worlds.

Can the light in Hades be said to originate from a sun/star, or is it just ambient light? I'm not quite sure of the sky arrangement in Hades.

Makes me suddenly curious about Wormwood and its light, since it's canonically in a pocket dimension I don't think it has a conventional sun for its light so maybe vampires would be perfectly safe there no matter if it were day or night.

[taalismn]

[

Makes me suddenly curious about Wormwood and its light, since it's canonically in a pocket dimension I don't think it has a conventional sun for its light so maybe vampires would be perfectly safe there no matter if it were day or night.

Wormwood was/is a planet...an organic planet, admittedly, but still a planet....with moons and a sun, so I'd say that it's not anything exotic in that regard.

[Axelmania]

Been a while since I read the book, anyone know where the 'pocket' dimension statement is? Pg 40 mentions "a different dimension than Rifts Earth. Whether this is a parallel dimension similar to our own or something completely is different is unknown"

I remember the multiple moons thing but I can't remember if that was canon or just Tarn's writing. Anyone know where it mentions the sun?

Makes me wonder if you were turned vamp on this world how the 'home soil' thing would work considering there isn't very much of it.

[eliakon]

Been a while since I read the book, anyone know where the 'pocket' dimension statement is? Pg 40 mentions "a different dimension than Rifts Earth. Whether this is a parallel dimension similar to our own or something completely is different is unknown"

I remember the multiple moons thing but I can't remember if that was canon or just Tarn's writing. Anyone know where it mentions the sun?

Makes me wonder if you were turned vamp on this world how the 'home soil' thing would work considering there isn't very much of it.

Hopefully you can find enough soil for you to rest in.
Otherwise it is going to really, really suck to be you.


As for the rest, I am equally curious.

[taalismn]

Been a while since I read the book, anyone know where the 'pocket' dimension statement is? Pg 40 mentions "a different dimension than Rifts Earth. Whether this is a parallel dimension similar to our own or something completely is different is unknown"

I remember the multiple moons thing but I can't remember if that was canon or just Tarn's writing. Anyone know where it mentions the sun?

Makes me wonder if you were turned vamp on this world how the 'home soil' thing would work considering there isn't very much of it.

The Wormwood mini-comic, I believe, shows moons.
I'll have to dig out my copy of Wormwood, but I'm fairly certain Wormwood has a sun and a day/night cycle.
It's just that nobody seems to have spacecraft to get offworld and take a look around the local neighborhood to see if it's regular space, or celestial spheres or giant clockwork...

[Axelmania]

Page 9 top panel shows 3 small spheres and one large but it may be in the context of illustrating what Wormwood's lore is rather than actual events. The larger bottom panel does appear to show 2 moons in the sky when Vespers is climbing a rope on a building. Although the circle on the left could possibly be a radio dish attached to a spire.

Also appears to be stars.in the sky which makes me wonder about the pocket dimension claim.

[taalismn]

Page 9 top panel shows 3 small spheres and one large but it may be in the context of illustrating what Wormwood's lore is rather than actual events. The larger bottom panel does appear to show 2 moons in the sky when Vespers is climbing a rope on a building. Although the circle on the left could possibly be a radio dish attached to a spire.

Also appears to be stars.in the sky which makes me wonder about the pocket dimension claim.

Pocket could be fairly large...globular cluster or galaxy-sized. Or those 'stars' could just be really big and high-flying fireflies.

[cornholioprime]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

[Nightmask]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

Except metaphysics tend to work just like regular physics, where intensity does matter instead of 'well they got hit by a photon of light full damage for them'. Metaphysics rarely have intensity not matter from what I've seen, since even from a magical standpoint exposure to more of what something's vulnerable to is going to deal more damage instead of the same.

[cornholioprime]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

Except metaphysics tend to work just like regular physics, where intensity does matter instead of 'well they got hit by a photon of light full damage for them'. Metaphysics rarely have intensity not matter from what I've seen, since even from a magical standpoint exposure to more of what something's vulnerable to is going to deal more damage instead of the same.

Not in the case of vampires and sunlight damage. One table of damage for them and that's pretty much it.

[eliakon]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

Except metaphysics tend to work just like regular physics, where intensity does matter instead of 'well they got hit by a photon of light full damage for them'. Metaphysics rarely have intensity not matter from what I've seen, since even from a magical standpoint exposure to more of what something's vulnerable to is going to deal more damage instead of the same.

Magic is full of "either fully affected or not affected at all"
Unlike in normal physics where you get spectrums of effect.
Magic loves to do the "save for half damage/no damage" thing for instance.
And as others have pointed out, the only canon table for vampires has a flat damage result, with no variation.

[Nightmask]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

Except metaphysics tend to work just like regular physics, where intensity does matter instead of 'well they got hit by a photon of light full damage for them'. Metaphysics rarely have intensity not matter from what I've seen, since even from a magical standpoint exposure to more of what something's vulnerable to is going to deal more damage instead of the same.

Not in the case of vampires and sunlight damage. One table of damage for them and that's pretty much it.

Except again nowhere do the rules say anything about sunlight dealing only one value of damage no matter how intense or dim, all rules carry the underlying assumption that it's sunlight at the intensity seen on the surface of the Earth just like we have to assume rules regarding how fast something falls being based on a gravitational pull effectively equal to the surface of Earth, that the atmosphere is roughly as thick, etc. One is expressing a house rule when they claim that intensity is irrelevant and that damage applies from the surface of the sun on out then adding in another house rule for why sunlight at night from distant stars isn't just as damaging because it's still sunlight (and trying to argue 'but it's not sunlight it's starlight' is an argument that fails on its face) so why would the light from the Earth's sun while that dim deal such high levels of damage yet a distant sun not do so.

It only makes logical sense that intensity does matter and is why it simply stops dealing damage as the damage drops off with distance as it grows weaker as there's less of the damaging sunlight involved to cause harm because few things are as illogical INCLUDING from a mystical/metaphysics standpoint that a vampire sitting on the sun takes no more damage than it does on Earth and that same vampire is quick fried on Pluto where the sun can't even be told apart from any other star in the sky.

[dreicunan]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

Except metaphysics tend to work just like regular physics, where intensity does matter instead of 'well they got hit by a photon of light full damage for them'. Metaphysics rarely have intensity not matter from what I've seen, since even from a magical standpoint exposure to more of what something's vulnerable to is going to deal more damage instead of the same.

Not in the case of vampires and sunlight damage. One table of damage for them and that's pretty much it.

Except again nowhere do the rules say anything about sunlight dealing only one value of damage no matter how intense or dim, all rules carry the underlying assumption that it's sunlight at the intensity seen on the surface of the Earth just like we have to assume rules regarding how fast something falls being based on a gravitational pull effectively equal to the surface of Earth, that the atmosphere is roughly as thick, etc. One is expressing a house rule when they claim that intensity is irrelevant and that damage applies from the surface of the sun on out then adding in another house rule for why sunlight at night from distant stars isn't just as damaging because it's still sunlight (and trying to argue 'but it's not sunlight it's starlight' is an argument that fails on its face) so why would the light from the Earth's sun while that dim deal such high levels of damage yet a distant sun not do so.

It only makes logical sense that intensity does matter and is why it simply stops dealing damage as the damage drops off with distance as it grows weaker as there's less of the damaging sunlight involved to cause harm because few things are as illogical INCLUDING from a mystical/metaphysics standpoint that a vampire sitting on the sun takes no more damage than it does on Earth and that same vampire is quick fried on Pluto where the sun can't even be told apart from any other star in the sky.

So why doesn't the damage vary based on distance from the equator and time of year? While intensity clearly does matter (globe of daylight), we don't know how it matters, so anything that anyone rules is going to be a house rule. GM's just need to rule what is going to work for their games, because there ia no definitive argument to be made from canon sources.

[Nightmask]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

Except metaphysics tend to work just like regular physics, where intensity does matter instead of 'well they got hit by a photon of light full damage for them'. Metaphysics rarely have intensity not matter from what I've seen, since even from a magical standpoint exposure to more of what something's vulnerable to is going to deal more damage instead of the same.

Not in the case of vampires and sunlight damage. One table of damage for them and that's pretty much it.

Except again nowhere do the rules say anything about sunlight dealing only one value of damage no matter how intense or dim, all rules carry the underlying assumption that it's sunlight at the intensity seen on the surface of the Earth just like we have to assume rules regarding how fast something falls being based on a gravitational pull effectively equal to the surface of Earth, that the atmosphere is roughly as thick, etc. One is expressing a house rule when they claim that intensity is irrelevant and that damage applies from the surface of the sun on out then adding in another house rule for why sunlight at night from distant stars isn't just as damaging because it's still sunlight (and trying to argue 'but it's not sunlight it's starlight' is an argument that fails on its face) so why would the light from the Earth's sun while that dim deal such high levels of damage yet a distant sun not do so.

It only makes logical sense that intensity does matter and is why it simply stops dealing damage as the damage drops off with distance as it grows weaker as there's less of the damaging sunlight involved to cause harm because few things are as illogical INCLUDING from a mystical/metaphysics standpoint that a vampire sitting on the sun takes no more damage than it does on Earth and that same vampire is quick fried on Pluto where the sun can't even be told apart from any other star in the sky.

So why doesn't the damage vary based on distance from the equator and time of year? While intensity clearly does matter (globe of daylight), we don't know how it matters, so anything that anyone rules is going to be a house rule. GM's just need to rule what is going to work for their games, because there ia no definitive argument to be made from canon sources.

Because they aren't significantly different compared to being on Mercury or Pluto, but yes the books give no idea how much the damage would scale based on distances/intensities since they're Earth-centric in calculations and can't cover every possible event (like vampires on Venus) leaving such non-Earth calculations up to the GM.

[VR Dragon]

A vampire is a supernatural entity.

If it was just light intensity or UV then lasers would hurt them but they do not... so its the supernatural nature of day time and night time.

Keep it simple.

[taalismn]

A vampire is a supernatural entity.

If it was just light intensity or UV then lasers would hurt them but they do not... so its the supernatural nature of day time and night time.

Keep it simple.

"In other words, popping them into the heart of a star isn't going to make them dissolve any faster...just give them fewer places to hide."
"Nuts."
"Hey, I can work with that."

[flatline]

I have no idea what the canon position is and, quite frankly, we never bothered much with vampires in any of our games so it never came up.

However, I find it appealing to link a star's ability to sustain life with its ability to damage vampires. As such, I think I'd rule that vampires take damage from any star light intense enough to support photosynthesis. So in our solar system, once you get out to Jupiter, the Sun will not damage vampires.

Again, that's just my house rule. I have no idea what the canon ruling would be.

--flatline

[taalismn]

I have no idea what the canon position is and, quite frankly, we never bothered much with vampires in any of our games so it never came up.

However, I find it appealing to link a star's ability to sustain life with its ability to damage vampires.

--flatline

[Nightmask]

I have no idea what the canon position is and, quite frankly, we never bothered much with vampires in any of our games so it never came up.

However, I find it appealing to link a star's ability to sustain life with its ability to damage vampires. As such, I think I'd rule that vampires take damage from any star light intense enough to support photosynthesis. So in our solar system, once you get out to Jupiter, the Sun will not damage vampires.

Again, that's just my house rule. I have no idea what the canon ruling would be.

--flatline

That still carries with it the idea that even more intense sunlight would deal more damage since it reaches the point it would effectively be too intensive and destructive for life, kind of like the Positive Material Realm in the original AD&D. It was so over-brimming with life energy it was actually dangerous, that more intense sunlight is even more charged with that life-energy that's contrary to the nature of the vampire.

[eliakon]

I have no idea what the canon position is and, quite frankly, we never bothered much with vampires in any of our games so it never came up.

However, I find it appealing to link a star's ability to sustain life with its ability to damage vampires. As such, I think I'd rule that vampires take damage from any star light intense enough to support photosynthesis. So in our solar system, once you get out to Jupiter, the Sun will not damage vampires.

Again, that's just my house rule. I have no idea what the canon ruling would be.

--flatline

That still carries with it the idea that even more intense sunlight would deal more damage since it reaches the point it would effectively be too intensive and destructive for life, kind of like the Positive Material Realm in the original AD&D. It was so over-brimming with life energy it was actually dangerous, that more intense sunlight is even more charged with that life-energy that's contrary to the nature of the vampire.

No it doesn't.
It has a binary state to it.
Lifegiving light does damage X
Non-lifgiving light does no damage
Once again there is no 'scale to it' its a yes or no question.
All light that gives life does X all light that does not give light does not do X
Its a pretty simple formula
If L then D
If no L then no D

(L= Lifegiving light D=Damage)

There is no intensity issue.

Now sure, again, you can make such a house rule if you like. No one will stop you.
But the option here of explaining why the canon rule works is still a binary one not a scalar one.

[taalismn]

The variable with the lifegiving sunlight factor, though, is non-terrestrial life. Oh, you could define 'lifegiving properties' by the efficiency of terrestrial chlorophyll-based photosynthesis, but what about lower-intensity photosensitive processes that we don't yet know about?

Okay, I realize I just mangled another clean solution/tossed kerosene on the grill...

[flatline]

The variable with the lifegiving sunlight factor, though, is non-terrestrial life. Oh, you could define 'lifegiving properties' by the efficiency of terrestrial chlorophyll-based photosynthesis, but what about lower-intensity photosensitive processes that we don't yet know about?

Okay, I realize I just mangled another clean solution/tossed kerosene on the grill...

You could flip that on it's head and say that life within the solar system gives the star the ability to damage vampires, but only as far from the star as that life is sustained by the star. Using that rule, vampires would be fine on Mars until agriculture is established on Mars. Similarly, if all life on Earth was wiped out, then the Sun would lose its ability to damage vampires at all, no matter how close the vampire is to the sun.

But that's not as satisfying to me as my previous suggestion.

--flatline

[taalismn]

The variable with the lifegiving sunlight factor, though, is non-terrestrial life. Oh, you could define 'lifegiving properties' by the efficiency of terrestrial chlorophyll-based photosynthesis, but what about lower-intensity photosensitive processes that we don't yet know about?

Okay, I realize I just mangled another clean solution/tossed kerosene on the grill...

You could flip that on it's head and say that life within the solar system gives the star the ability to damage vampires, but only as far from the star as that life is sustained by the star. Using that rule, vampires would be fine on Mars until agriculture is established on Mars. Similarly, if all life on Earth was wiped out, then the Sun would lose its ability to damage vampires at all, no matter how close the vampire is to the sun.

But that's not as satisfying to me as my previous suggestion.

--flatline

Vampire Intelligence:(to daylight minions) "Go kill EVERYTHING in the system. I want a nice quiet place to rest between feeding runs."

[IGNG]

I have no idea what the canon position is and, quite frankly, we never bothered much with vampires in any of our games so it never came up.

However, I find it appealing to link a star's ability to sustain life with its ability to damage vampires. As such, I think I'd rule that vampires take damage from any star light intense enough to support photosynthesis. So in our solar system, once you get out to Jupiter, the Sun will not damage vampires.

Again, that's just my house rule. I have no idea what the canon ruling would be.

--flatline

This would imply that vampires walking on the sun would be just fine as most liquids one could theoretically use for a basis for life (water, ammonia, etc.) would boil and thus the star would be equally incapable of "sustaining life" at that range as it would be beyond the orbit of Jupiter.

*puts on Smash Mouth tinfoil hat*

[Blue_Lion]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

Except metaphysics tend to work just like regular physics, where intensity does matter instead of 'well they got hit by a photon of light full damage for them'. Metaphysics rarely have intensity not matter from what I've seen, since even from a magical standpoint exposure to more of what something's vulnerable to is going to deal more damage instead of the same.

If I recall metaphysics is more about perception and will. That can change things in funny ways.

[Nightmask]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

Except metaphysics tend to work just like regular physics, where intensity does matter instead of 'well they got hit by a photon of light full damage for them'. Metaphysics rarely have intensity not matter from what I've seen, since even from a magical standpoint exposure to more of what something's vulnerable to is going to deal more damage instead of the same.

If I recall metaphysics is more about perception and will. That can change things in funny ways.

Except perception and will would STILL hold that 'more intense sunlight means more damage' because it's not a plausible perception that increasing intensity would carry no extra harm.

[taalismn]

And if I can successfully engineer an organism(such as a plant) that can use the dim sunlight beyond Jovian orbit to fuel its life processes, can I seed those regions and effectively make them vampire no-zones?

[eliakon]

In one of the Sourcebooks centered around the Phase World sector of the Rifts Multiverse, there is a Hook/Line/Sinker involving a colony that has been overrun with vampires.
The "exercise" requires the heroes to stay alive, for an extended period of time -assuming they even catch on to what's happening -until the moon colony gets around the planet and the sun shines on it (as in, the 'night' there on that moon is much longer than a terrestrial rotation, perhaps even several days long).

This outpost, IICR, is furthermore implied to be around a sun that is much weaker than Sol because the colony is snow-shrouded or extremely cold or something like that. The system might even be powered by a dwarf star, O just don;t remember.
If true, then this lends weight to the argument that the intensity of the sunlight in question does not matter to the vampire and the damage he receives.

MOST LIKELY CONCLUSION: If the star in question is the "sun" to the planet that a vampire is on, he will metaphysically take damage per the vampire damage tables should he find himself exposed to its rays. And if intensity doesn't matter because metaphysics are involved and not physics, then it shouldn't matter how far away a star is or what stage a star is in its life cycle, as long as it still gives off light.

Except metaphysics tend to work just like regular physics, where intensity does matter instead of 'well they got hit by a photon of light full damage for them'. Metaphysics rarely have intensity not matter from what I've seen, since even from a magical standpoint exposure to more of what something's vulnerable to is going to deal more damage instead of the same.

If I recall metaphysics is more about perception and will. That can change things in funny ways.

Except perception and will would STILL hold that 'more intense sunlight means more damage' because it's not a plausible perception that increasing intensity would carry no extra harm.

Why would increasing intensity carry more harm in magic?
It doesn't in most forms of magic so why this one unique special case?
Virtually every spell has a flat "This far and no farther" effect parameter. Even if it is "more intense" (higher level, or higher spell strength)
No matter how much you change the 'intensity' (spell strength or level) of an Energy Bolt spell it does 4d6 SDC at 150'. Regardless if it is a level 1 Energy Bolt or a level 150 Energy Bolt. The intensity has changed... but this being magic nothing else has.
Light Healing? Yep, no change
Globe of Daylight? Guess what? Simulated daylight has no change based on level (intensity) other than how long you can maintain the spell...
...almost as if the 'intensity' of the magic has on effect on the 'intensity' sunlight or its effects...
Again and again spells have no change regardless of the 'intensity' of the spell. The only time magic has a damage change based on intensity, is when the damage is done per level, and to do that we are explicitly told "this magic has a variable damage, here is how the variable is calculated". There are round about zero magical effects that have variable damage where the variation is not spelled out but is just 'implied because magic is just like science and thus must be variable of course'.

[kronos]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this or not.. but instead of intensity and all that.. sunlight is what is considered day light on the planet you are on. The hours that part of the planet is facing the sun. Because magic rules like how holy symbol only works if wearer believes.. MAGIC! Only because everyone believes see the sun, it's sun light and day time.
So the sunlight spell creates sunlight equal to that planet, or what the caster considers daylight from their planet.
So whatever is considered "daylight hours" on pluto, the side facing the sun, is day, and vampires are damaged, even if that light is not really visible to our eyes, magically it's day, and burn vampires burn. Same with Mercury.. day light is a lot brighter visually, but magically it's still "day", for however long a planetary rotation is.

But then you have a problem with if you're travelling in space.. well if you're in light with the sun, it's day? enter the shadow of a PLANET, it's night? or at least the vampire is shielded from the damage of the sun.
As to how far out the sun affects the vampire.. I guess what is considered part of the solar system is affected by that sun/star, anything outside that is free game. So out pass the Oort cloud is not in our solar system, and a vampire could float around a few million miles past the Oort and be safe, but his/her chances of encountering a food source are low and would end up starving.

Just my 2 credits.

[Natasha]

The photoelectric effect is a physical phenomenon in which increasing intensity carries no extra "harm". Indeed, it's only in classical physics that important concepts are continuous but that actually leads to inaccuracies in the theory and the need for quantum physics. Nevertheless, there are magical effects that have variable P.P.E. costs for variable results. On the other hand, the star may not be expending any P.P.E. whatsoever and an entirely different mystical aspect is at work. I reckon I can understand the desire for distance from the star to matter, but it seems like a whole lot of work for very little in return.

[Freemage]

Here's a question--how do fog and cloud-cover affect Rifts Vampires' vulnerability to sunlight, if at all?

[eliakon]

Here's a question--how do fog and cloud-cover affect Rifts Vampires' vulnerability to sunlight, if at all?

They don't
By canon, sunlight fries you irrespective of cloud cover, or fog, or other such minor details...
...and yes I get what your pointing out. That the intensity is being wildly varied here and the damage doesn't change at all. Also a cloudy dawn and a clear noon still do the same damage...

[Freemage]

Here's a question--how do fog and cloud-cover affect Rifts Vampires' vulnerability to sunlight, if at all?

They don't
By canon, sunlight fries you irrespective of cloud cover, or fog, or other such minor details...
...and yes I get what your pointing out. That the intensity is being wildly varied here and the damage doesn't change at all. Also a cloudy dawn and a clear noon still do the same damage...

Yes, that's what I was going for. And, in fact, consider: a foggy, cloudy dawn at the North Pole, where the sun has only just crested the horizon and will take another 30 hours to be actually fully manifest in the sky, does the same damage as High Noon on a clear day on a raft crossing the Equator in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

That's a fairly huge range of 'intensity', which would definitely suggest that it's a purely metaphysical concept. How the metaphysics apply in space then becomes a matter of GM interpretation.

As others have suggested, if you're in the solar system's gravity well, then you're probably dealing with a 'sun'. While in that area, follow the standard rules, whether your on Pluto or Mercury (or that system's equivalent). Deep space is Vampire Country, so long as the colony ship has a decent larder stocked, as it were.

Now, how this applies in other dimensions gets very strange, indeed. FREX, for a different system, I created an aquatic pocket dimension where 'light' was an ambient force--there were literally no shadows, nor any specific light-shedding objects. This ambient light was brighter closer to places of spiritual power, and dimmer further away (there was also a great chasm that was engulfed in darkness). Given the nature of the light, if I were to use that concept in a Rifts campaign, I'd say that all of that territory was 'sunlit', even without a sun--but the Abyss was 'always night', and thus an aquatic Vampire could've lived there indefinitely, so long as it could feed on the shark-men that inhabited the region.

[glitterboy2098]

Here's a question--how do fog and cloud-cover affect Rifts Vampires' vulnerability to sunlight, if at all?

They don't
By canon, sunlight fries you irrespective of cloud cover, or fog, or other such minor details...
...and yes I get what your pointing out. That the intensity is being wildly varied here and the damage doesn't change at all. Also a cloudy dawn and a clear noon still do the same damage...

Yes, that's what I was going for. And, in fact, consider: a foggy, cloudy dawn at the North Pole, where the sun has only just crested the horizon and will take another 30 hours to be actually fully manifest in the sky, does the same damage as High Noon on a clear day on a raft crossing the Equator in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

That's a fairly huge range of 'intensity', which would definitely suggest that it's a purely metaphysical concept. How the metaphysics apply in space then becomes a matter of GM interpretation.

As others have suggested, if you're in the solar system's gravity well, then you're probably dealing with a 'sun'. While in that area, follow the standard rules, whether your on Pluto or Mercury (or that system's equivalent). Deep space is Vampire Country, so long as the colony ship has a decent larder stocked, as it were.

Now, how this applies in other dimensions gets very strange, indeed. FREX, for a different system, I created an aquatic pocket dimension where 'light' was an ambient force--there were literally no shadows, nor any specific light-shedding objects. This ambient light was brighter closer to places of spiritual power, and dimmer further away (there was also a great chasm that was engulfed in darkness). Given the nature of the light, if I were to use that concept in a Rifts campaign, I'd say that all of that territory was 'sunlit', even without a sun--but the Abyss was 'always night', and thus an aquatic Vampire could've lived there indefinitely, so long as it could feed on the shark-men that inhabited the region.

this is pretty much why i put the limit at "can clearly define a sun in the sky"

look at this visualization.
http://www.astronoo.com/en/children/sun ... -size.html
anything past saturn the sun is basically just another star in the sky, just a touch brighter than most. if you didn't know what to look for, you'd not notice it. to me, that would be the metaphysical 'trigger'. where a star goes from "a star" to "a sun" as far as the metaphysical effect on vampires.

[SlaytheDragon]

I know this post is a few months old but I was going through Dragons & Gods and read through about Vald-Tegor, whose realms supposedly has a
sun that "does not shine, but instead glimmers a dull, red light easily borne by the most sensitive vampire." (Dragons & Gods, pg. 127.) So that being said canonically there is a place where the sun's intensity doesn't hurt vampires.

[Nightmask]

I know this post is a few months old but I was going through Dragons & Gods and read through about Vald-Tegor, whose realms supposedly has a
sun that "does not shine, but instead glimmers a dull, red light easily borne by the most sensitive vampire." (Dragons & Gods, pg. 127.) So that being said canonically there is a place where the sun's intensity doesn't hurt vampires.

So red suns are so weak that they don't harm vampires.

[13eowulf]

I know this post is a few months old but I was going through Dragons & Gods and read through about Vald-Tegor, whose realms supposedly has a
sun that "does not shine, but instead glimmers a dull, red light easily borne by the most sensitive vampire." (Dragons & Gods, pg. 127.) So that being said canonically there is a place where the sun's intensity doesn't hurt vampires.

So red suns are so weak that they don't harm vampires.

That is a fallacious leap of herculean, nay, Hulk-like proportions.
It would seem that this one god has a realm with special properties and a unique thing in place of a normal sun. This is reinforced considering the other unique properties of the realm.

[Nightmask]

I know this post is a few months old but I was going through Dragons & Gods and read through about Vald-Tegor, whose realms supposedly has a
sun that "does not shine, but instead glimmers a dull, red light easily borne by the most sensitive vampire." (Dragons & Gods, pg. 127.) So that being said canonically there is a place where the sun's intensity doesn't hurt vampires.

So red suns are so weak that they don't harm vampires.

That is a fallacious leap of herculean, nay, Hulk-like proportions.
It would seem that this one god has a realm with special properties and a unique thing in place of a normal sun. This is reinforced considering the other unique properties of the realm.

Nothing fallacious about it, nor do other unique properties of the realm mean that the sun is special/unique as well. Given it refers to even the weakest of vampires being able to bear it it is saying the sun's light is lacking the intensity/strength to do harm, otherwise there would be an explicit note that 'the light of this sun is not harmful to vampires' rather than going out of the way to note how weak it was, that it's output was dull and red and didn't have the strength to harm a vampire.

[eliakon]

I know this post is a few months old but I was going through Dragons & Gods and read through about Vald-Tegor, whose realms supposedly has a
sun that "does not shine, but instead glimmers a dull, red light easily borne by the most sensitive vampire." (Dragons & Gods, pg. 127.) So that being said canonically there is a place where the sun's intensity doesn't hurt vampires.

So red suns are so weak that they don't harm vampires.

That is a fallacious leap of herculean, nay, Hulk-like proportions.
It would seem that this one god has a realm with special properties and a unique thing in place of a normal sun. This is reinforced considering the other unique properties of the realm.

Nothing fallacious about it, nor do other unique properties of the realm mean that the sun is special/unique as well. Given it refers to even the weakest of vampires being able to bear it it is saying the sun's light is lacking the intensity/strength to do harm, otherwise there would be an explicit note that 'the light of this sun is not harmful to vampires' rather than going out of the way to note how weak it was, that it's output was dull and red and didn't have the strength to harm a vampire.

It also "doesn't shine" but "glimmers a dull, red light"
That is NOT what a 'red supergiant' does.
A red supergiant still shines. They do not "glimmer"
Thus it would sound like this is not a normal main-sequence star at all but...
...wait for it...
...a unique magical construct of a vampire world.

Now if the book said "This world is lit by a red supergiant star, whos red light is incapable of harming vampires" there would be something to work with.

As it is we just know that "weak, dull red glimmers from... whatever-it-is-that-does-THAT" don't hurt vampires.

[Axelmania]

The generally accepted definition is the star around which planets and other celestial bodies in system revolve around. This would mean, so long as you are in a solar system with a star, it would effect you. Sinse we know distant stars in the sky do not, then once you are out of it's system, it no longer will

I would suppose this would make the outer ring of the Oort cloud the range limit. vampirs in space beyond this limit and before entering the limit of any other solar system would not have to fear the sunlight (Unless a UWW Warlock Marine (Air) casts Globe of True Daylight to fry them), and likely would not have to sleep at all as there would be no daytime.

I had to look this up... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud says it is theoretical...

Seems kinda far, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIA1 ... tellar.jpg why not just limit it to the Heliosphere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_spa ... llar_space mentions "Interstellar space is the physical space within a galaxy beyond the influence of each star on the plasma" so I'm thinking "Beyond the influence" is enough to say that the star is no longer considered as sun there.

[The Beast]

I have no legal documents to support this, but the intention of the vampires sun light weakness is purely metaphysical. They are Undead. They are Creatures of Darkness. They are destroyed by any sun that brings an end to darkness and is responsible for life. If the stars in question do neither of those two things then it is irrelevant.

I was thinking of limiting sunlight's damage to the goldilocks zone of whatever star you're orbiting, however this is a simpler and more mystical solution.

[taalismn]

"Hey fang-ass, did you know the stars in the sky are all actually sunlight? Nice clear night we have tonight...you can see THOUSANDS of distant suns-""
"Wha-?! UUUUGGGHHHHH!!!!!"

-Very suggestible vampires, extinction of

[glitterboy2098]

I know this post is a few months old but I was going through Dragons & Gods and read through about Vald-Tegor, whose realms supposedly has a
sun that "does not shine, but instead glimmers a dull, red light easily borne by the most sensitive vampire." (Dragons & Gods, pg. 127.) So that being said canonically there is a place where the sun's intensity doesn't hurt vampires.

So red suns are so weak that they don't harm vampires.

That is a fallacious leap of herculean, nay, Hulk-like proportions.
It would seem that this one god has a realm with special properties and a unique thing in place of a normal sun. This is reinforced considering the other unique properties of the realm.

Nothing fallacious about it, nor do other unique properties of the realm mean that the sun is special/unique as well. Given it refers to even the weakest of vampires being able to bear it it is saying the sun's light is lacking the intensity/strength to do harm, otherwise there would be an explicit note that 'the light of this sun is not harmful to vampires' rather than going out of the way to note how weak it was, that it's output was dull and red and didn't have the strength to harm a vampire.

It also "doesn't shine" but "glimmers a dull, red light"
That is NOT what a 'red supergiant' does.
A red supergiant still shines. They do not "glimmer"
Thus it would sound like this is not a normal main-sequence star at all but...
...wait for it...
...a unique magical construct of a vampire world.

Now if the book said "This world is lit by a red supergiant star, whos red light is incapable of harming vampires" there would be something to work with.

As it is we just know that "weak, dull red glimmers from... whatever-it-is-that-does-THAT" don't hurt vampires.

Red Dwarf stars might fit the bill.. they are only a step above being a failed star (which would be a Brown Dwarf, which does not give off appreciable light)
a Red Dwarf's luminosity is very low, ranging from 7.2% of the Sun's for an M0V Red Dwarf to only 0.015% for a M9V Red Dwarf. Red Dwarfs, can have planets, like Gliese 581, an M3V with luminosity of 0.013%. they just tend to orbit in very close and even those in the narrow "habitable zone" such a star would have are going to be very dim worlds indeed.(like Gliese 581g and Gliese 581d, both of which lies within the 'habitable zone' for the star)

[eliakon]

So red suns are so weak that they don't harm vampires.

That is a fallacious leap of herculean, nay, Hulk-like proportions.
It would seem that this one god has a realm with special properties and a unique thing in place of a normal sun. This is reinforced considering the other unique properties of the realm.

Nothing fallacious about it, nor do other unique properties of the realm mean that the sun is special/unique as well. Given it refers to even the weakest of vampires being able to bear it it is saying the sun's light is lacking the intensity/strength to do harm, otherwise there would be an explicit note that 'the light of this sun is not harmful to vampires' rather than going out of the way to note how weak it was, that it's output was dull and red and didn't have the strength to harm a vampire.

It also "doesn't shine" but "glimmers a dull, red light"
That is NOT what a 'red supergiant' does.
A red supergiant still shines. They do not "glimmer"
Thus it would sound like this is not a normal main-sequence star at all but...
...wait for it...
...a unique magical construct of a vampire world.

Now if the book said "This world is lit by a red supergiant star, whos red light is incapable of harming vampires" there would be something to work with.

As it is we just know that "weak, dull red glimmers from... whatever-it-is-that-does-THAT" don't hurt vampires.

Red Dwarf stars might fit the bill.. they are only a step above being a failed star (which would be a Brown Dwarf, which does not give off appreciable light)
a Red Dwarf's luminosity is very low, ranging from 7.2% of the Sun's for an M0V Red Dwarf to only 0.015% for a M9V Red Dwarf. Red Dwarfs, can have planets, like Gliese 581, an M3V with luminosity of 0.013%. they just tend to orbit in very close and even those in the narrow "habitable zone" such a star would have are going to be very dim worlds indeed.(like Gliese 581g and Gliese 581d, both of which lies within the 'habitable zone' for the star)

It might. Just as soon as you can provide the other half of the evidence that your supposedly 'disproving'
Simply changing the star doesn't MATTER
Red Super Giant, Red Dwarf... it doesn't matter in the slightest. Any and all stars "shine' they do not "glimmer" Which implies a constant changing of the light levels over the surface of the star in such an amount as to create visible 'shimmering' or 'glimmers' on the ground AND that since it does not shine it can NOT be radiating light or sunshine or otherwise "Shine".
AND of course, that would still require the wildly unsupported speculation that star X is really Star kind Y. And that this proves that light has property Z
Basically its all bunk with out a single shred of proof other than "Well this one magical star is red, so I'm going to fiat that this proves that weak red stars can't harm vampires and then use THAT to prove that light levels control damage to vampires even though no other form of light level of any kind even far FAR greater ones such as shade or the like have any affect on them. Because I want to prove that magic is not really magic and that its all pure science that follows rigid laws of science that are exactly like our world, even though we can prove that the laws of physics in the Palladium universe are not even the same ones as in our universe."
It is not the "red light" that is the issue. The red light is just the straw man that is being used to try and 'prove' a totally different issue. And THAT issue is that the books are pretty clear in every instance where sun light is described that there is no 'intensity' value nor is color an issue. Thus adding those as relevant is a house rule that needs an IN TEXT CITATION if it is going to be claimed as being actually canon.

[taalismn]

"Hah! The feeble rays of this red dwarf star cannot harm me, pathetic cattle! And you have neither silver nor running water-"
"Wait! The light of this star warms this planet enough to support a native population of algae that have evolved to benefit from the low light and infrared emissions! That makes it a life-sustaining SUN! And therefore-"
"What?! No! It can't beAAAUUUGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!"

-Another highly suggestible vampire gets dusted.

[Nightmask]

Nothing fallacious about it, nor do other unique properties of the realm mean that the sun is special/unique as well. Given it refers to even the weakest of vampires being able to bear it it is saying the sun's light is lacking the intensity/strength to do harm, otherwise there would be an explicit note that 'the light of this sun is not harmful to vampires' rather than going out of the way to note how weak it was, that it's output was dull and red and didn't have the strength to harm a vampire.

It also "doesn't shine" but "glimmers a dull, red light"
That is NOT what a 'red supergiant' does.
A red supergiant still shines. They do not "glimmer"
Thus it would sound like this is not a normal main-sequence star at all but...
...wait for it...
...a unique magical construct of a vampire world.

Now if the book said "This world is lit by a red supergiant star, whos red light is incapable of harming vampires" there would be something to work with.

As it is we just know that "weak, dull red glimmers from... whatever-it-is-that-does-THAT" don't hurt vampires.

Red Dwarf stars might fit the bill.. they are only a step above being a failed star (which would be a Brown Dwarf, which does not give off appreciable light)
a Red Dwarf's luminosity is very low, ranging from 7.2% of the Sun's for an M0V Red Dwarf to only 0.015% for a M9V Red Dwarf. Red Dwarfs, can have planets, like Gliese 581, an M3V with luminosity of 0.013%. they just tend to orbit in very close and even those in the narrow "habitable zone" such a star would have are going to be very dim worlds indeed.(like Gliese 581g and Gliese 581d, both of which lies within the 'habitable zone' for the star)

It might. Just as soon as you can provide the other half of the evidence that your supposedly 'disproving'
Simply changing the star doesn't MATTER
Red Super Giant, Red Dwarf... it doesn't matter in the slightest. Any and all stars "shine' they do not "glimmer" Which implies a constant changing of the light levels over the surface of the star in such an amount as to create visible 'shimmering' or 'glimmers' on the ground AND that since it does not shine it can NOT be radiating light or sunshine or otherwise "Shine".
AND of course, that would still require the wildly unsupported speculation that star X is really Star kind Y. And that this proves that light has property Z
Basically its all bunk with out a single shred of proof other than "Well this one magical star is red, so I'm going to fiat that this proves that weak red stars can't harm vampires and then use THAT to prove that light levels control damage to vampires even though no other form of light level of any kind even far FAR greater ones such as shade or the like have any affect on them. Because I want to prove that magic is not really magic and that its all pure science that follows rigid laws of science that are exactly like our world, even though we can prove that the laws of physics in the Palladium universe are not even the same ones as in our universe."
It is not the "red light" that is the issue. The red light is just the straw man that is being used to try and 'prove' a totally different issue. And THAT issue is that the books are pretty clear in every instance where sun light is described that there is no 'intensity' value nor is color an issue. Thus adding those as relevant is a house rule that needs an IN TEXT CITATION if it is going to be claimed as being actually canon.

That's just YOUR house rule that intensity or type of star doesn't matter. The material was clearly not written with the idea of playing someplace not on Earth or a world in a similar environmental setting (i.e. roughly earth sized, earth-level gravity, earth level sunlight, etc). There is nothing in canon that says intensity doesn't matter that's just your interpretation, even though by that argument then the stars at night would still kill vampires because they're still shining and lighting up the sky at night and with your argument intensity doesn't matter and there isn't any canon statement to support any position that 'well it only matters inside their star system, it stops mattering outside that range.' That's just your house rule patch to cover the obvious flaw in your houserule that intensity doesn't matter while you try and argue that's the canon of the books when it most certainly isn't.

[eliakon]

Spoiler:

Nothing fallacious about it, nor do other unique properties of the realm mean that the sun is special/unique as well. Given it refers to even the weakest of vampires being able to bear it it is saying the sun's light is lacking the intensity/strength to do harm, otherwise there would be an explicit note that 'the light of this sun is not harmful to vampires' rather than going out of the way to note how weak it was, that it's output was dull and red and didn't have the strength to harm a vampire.

It also "doesn't shine" but "glimmers a dull, red light"
That is NOT what a 'red supergiant' does.
A red supergiant still shines. They do not "glimmer"
Thus it would sound like this is not a normal main-sequence star at all but...
...wait for it...
...a unique magical construct of a vampire world.

Now if the book said "This world is lit by a red supergiant star, whos red light is incapable of harming vampires" there would be something to work with.

As it is we just know that "weak, dull red glimmers from... whatever-it-is-that-does-THAT" don't hurt vampires.

Red Dwarf stars might fit the bill.. they are only a step above being a failed star (which would be a Brown Dwarf, which does not give off appreciable light)
a Red Dwarf's luminosity is very low, ranging from 7.2% of the Sun's for an M0V Red Dwarf to only 0.015% for a M9V Red Dwarf. Red Dwarfs, can have planets, like Gliese 581, an M3V with luminosity of 0.013%. they just tend to orbit in very close and even those in the narrow "habitable zone" such a star would have are going to be very dim worlds indeed.(like Gliese 581g and Gliese 581d, both of which lies within the 'habitable zone' for the star)

It might. Just as soon as you can provide the other half of the evidence that your supposedly 'disproving'
Simply changing the star doesn't MATTER
Red Super Giant, Red Dwarf... it doesn't matter in the slightest. Any and all stars "shine' they do not "glimmer" Which implies a constant changing of the light levels over the surface of the star in such an amount as to create visible 'shimmering' or 'glimmers' on the ground AND that since it does not shine it can NOT be radiating light or sunshine or otherwise "Shine".
AND of course, that would still require the wildly unsupported speculation that star X is really Star kind Y. And that this proves that light has property Z
Basically its all bunk with out a single shred of proof other than "Well this one magical star is red, so I'm going to fiat that this proves that weak red stars can't harm vampires and then use THAT to prove that light levels control damage to vampires even though no other form of light level of any kind even far FAR greater ones such as shade or the like have any affect on them. Because I want to prove that magic is not really magic and that its all pure science that follows rigid laws of science that are exactly like our world, even though we can prove that the laws of physics in the Palladium universe are not even the same ones as in our universe."
It is not the "red light" that is the issue. The red light is just the straw man that is being used to try and 'prove' a totally different issue. And THAT issue is that the books are pretty clear in every instance where sun light is described that there is no 'intensity' value nor is color an issue. Thus adding those as relevant is a house rule that needs an IN TEXT CITATION if it is going to be claimed as being actually canon.

That's just YOUR house rule that intensity or type of star doesn't matter.

Again I think you have a misunderstanding of what the word "House rule" means
House rule is a change from the canon.
Rules are positive in nature meaning that things need to be said to be a certain way to be a rule, the lack of something being said to not be a certain way is not proof that it is that way.
Canon does not have to prove a negative in otherwords.
It is therefore not a 'house rule' to think that intensity or star type doesn't matter.
The house rule is to state that they do matter.
That is because there is no written canon stating that they do matter, and thus it is impossible to say what the canonicity of the idea of either of those factors mattering is. It might matter, it might not matter we can't say for sure. But what we can say for sure is that we can not say that either stance is 'the correct way' at this time.

The material was clearly not written with the idea of playing someplace not on Earth or a world in a similar environmental setting (i.e. roughly earth sized, earth-level gravity, earth level sunlight, etc). There is nothing in canon that says intensity doesn't matter that's just your interpretation,

Again, there is no need to prove a negative
The presumption is that sunlight is sunlight, that is the status quo
The claim that some kinds of sunlight are, in fact not really sunlight is not the default. Therefore the rules do not have to say that the intensity of the light doesn't matter. That is the default. If you wish to prove that the intensity does matter you need to demonstrate that there is support for such a stance, we are not required to prove a negative.
If you can provide proof for that claim then I will admit that intensity does matter. Until that time I will have to say that we while can not say for sure if it does or does not matter, but that I believe that the preponderance of evidence suggests that it does not.

even though by that argument then the stars at night would still kill vampires because they're still shining and lighting up the sky at night

Nice strawman
That is literally a classic strawman
You are presenting an unrelated statement (talking about star light) that is known to be false that can be disproven and then trying to use it to disprove the first statement.
That is NOT my argument.
Canon explicitly says that sunlight hurts, moon light does not and starlight does not.
It does not say why this is. Just that it is. Speculation on why is non-canonical because there is, as I have said repeatedly, no canon explaination for this (unless we credit Doc Reid with his belief that it is elemental in nature).
HOWEVER, since intensity is not the only explanation, therefor we can not simply assume that the cause of this situation is intensity. Intensity is an explanation yes. So is "there are mystic qualities inherent in the symbolisim of sunlight that require it to be precevied as sunlight and not be other light." This, infact, is quite possible since Globe of Daylight creates sunlight that can not hurt vampires. It is not the intensity that is at issue there since it is "daylight" it is simply missing some mystical quality that makes it 'true sunlight' as per the spell that creates true daylight. And of course since we are discussing a mystical weakness of a supernatural creature... well yeah.
There may well be other explainations as well.

and with your argument intensity doesn't matter and there isn't any canon statement to support any position that 'well it only matters inside their star system, it stops mattering outside that range.' That's just your house rule patch to cover the obvious flaw in your houserule that intensity doesn't matter while you try and argue that's the canon of the books when it most certainly isn't.

Again your logical fallacies here are amazing... but you still haven't actually proven anything.
1) your misrepresenting my stance and claims
2) you are incorrectly defining the word "house rule" Anything that conflicts with your view of the game is not a "house rule". It is only a house rule if it actually changes some facet of established canon. Simply stating that the rules do not cover a situation but that I would speculate that X would be the result based on Y and Z is not an attempt to try and pass my house rule off as canon. It is exactly what it says on the tin... speculation based on extrapolating from known details to arrive at the answer to an unknown one.
3) you are then taking said misrepresentation and using that as 'proof' that your personal version of the word house rule is actually 'proving' my incorrectly stated claim to be false and that there for you must be right because... I'm still lost there.

The problem is that
1) I have not actually said that the things you are claiming my stance defines as canon are canon.
2) When I have presented speculation on why something is, I have labled it as exactly that... speculation
3) that simply because you view the game a certain way does not make that view canon. A view is only canon if there is textual support. Which is lacking for intensity at this time.

The simple fact is we have some basic facts of the game
1) Sunlight hurts vampires
2) Any and all sunlight on earth at any time of day, on any day, on any part of the planet, is equally and identically effective
3) That being exposed to any amount of sunlight, of any level on earth up to and including 'weak' sunlight such as in the penumbra of a shadow will harm a vampire
4) Globe of Daylight does not create "true" daylight, but the Warlock spell Globe of True Sunlight does.
5) that nuclear weapons, even though they create the same light as a sun do not harm vampires
6) that no laser of any sort, regardless of its intensity will harm a vampire
7) Vampires are not affected in any way by starlight or moonlight
8) at any time during the day, regardless of any other issue a vampire suffers while the sun is up. No matter how deep underground it is, or well rested
9) that vampires can freely act during the night, so we know that 'day time' is not simply a time when light that came from a sun at some point (star and moon light) is shining on the ground
10) that vampires are explicitly defined as being supernatural beings that have their weaknesses be supernatural ones. (Water being an example of something where we know that purity of water doesn't matter... but it must be actual water and not something that is not water, such as blood or urine which are mostly water by volume.)

That is what we canonically know from the books.
We do not know all of the why's and wherefores of them. But I find that the claim that intensity of the light is the only possible explanation to be implausible on its face even before the utter lack of any canon support for it whatsoever from any text that I am aware of is brought into the discussion. It makes a workable house rule for a GM that wishes to have a scientific explanation for vampires and does not like what appears to be the canon one which is "They are supernatural so it works like that because its magic"