Preventive Meta-Gaming

[Axelmania]

Does anyone ever catch themselves thinking this way? I don't know if I'm just paranoid of GMs or something but...

Consider the idea of golems, where you permanently sacrifice SDC (not incredibly useful in an MDC world) for a regenerating MDC guardian who can protect you in your sleep, do manual labour, etc.

Realistically this is an amazing deal and people would probably be spending as much SDC as possible to get lots and lots of golems, it's just a swell deal, and would be very in-character to do.

But I'm prone to thinking in a meta-game way like "a GM might spare me from danger, but be very willing to kill my golems to make a point" so it becomes a sense of, why permanently sacrifice life point for a servant who is going to have a bullseye on them from day one?

[flatline]

Well, we always avoided getting too attached to specific vehicles and weapons because they were easily lost or destroyed, but I'm not certain that's the same thing that you're talking about.

--flatline

[jaymz]

GMs stopped "targeting" me the way you infer a long time ago. Why? Because I am very capable of making their life just as miserable in regards to the game as they can mine. Most GMs tend to notvwant that so they learn quickly to just let me do my thing v

[Killer Cyborg]

But I'm prone to thinking in a meta-game way like "a GM might spare me from danger, but be very willing to kill my golems to make a point" so it becomes a sense of, why permanently sacrifice life point for a servant who is going to have a bullseye on them from day one?

I do that sometimes; it partially depends on the GM.

One thing to keep in mind is that Game Masters are limited, and it's not the players' job to make things unduly difficult for the GM.
If you want to have 50 Golems (or however many), but only keep one with you at a time, and have the rest guarding your base/citadel/whatever, then I don't think that most GMs would have a problem with that.
But if you try to have 50 NPC Sidekicks with you, most GMs are going to take issue of some kind, and yeah... a lot would probably Grudge-Monster your golems to death.

I had a D&D game where the GM was dealing with 4-5 PCs, each of which had an animal companion, a pet, a cohort, or a summoned creature with them in pretty much every battle, roughly doubling the size of the party.
The GM didn't go out of the way to kill my character's pet animal, but he didn't give it any leeway either, and it soon ended up dead. I think some of the other sidekick/creatures ended up the same way, just because it was too much work for the GM to deal with a party that size.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The only thing I do for Rifts chars is to the char's feet as their vehicle.

[Axelmania]

Familiars are another example: they really are a sweet deal I think most of us would do, a good investment and more benefits than you put in: but making them just feels like you're putting a target on your pet for the GM to kill off to make a point (you even feel what they feel so you'd feel your pet's death!) and then you lose permanent HP (or was it SDC?) investments there too.

Due to this I think a lot of minion-lovers will just make Mummies/Zombies instead of Familiars/Golems due to fear of GM.

[Killer Cyborg]

Familiars are another example: they really are a sweet deal I think most of us would do, a good investment and more benefits than you put in: but making them just feels like you're putting a target on your pet for the GM to kill off to make a point (you even feel what they feel so you'd feel your pet's death!) and then you lose permanent HP (or was it SDC?) investments there too.

I never thought that Familiar Link looked at all attractive in Rifts.
You link with a small animal (i.e., SDC), and in return you get 6 extra Hit Points (which don't matter much in Rifts), and if the familiar is attacked, you take the same damage, even if you're miles apart.
And if the familiar dies--and the first time somebody chucks a MD grenade in your direction, it's going to--you permanently lose 10 HP, and there's a 50% chance of you lapsing into a coma for 1d6 hours.

Not at all worth it for an SDC critter that you can use as eyes and ears a whopping 600' away, not unless you have some really good buffing on the animal that'll keep it from getting insta-killed every combat.


Summon Greater Familiar is generally better, except for the mental wrestling match every 30 days, and the fact that you have to be Anarchist or lower alignment.
But at least you don't lose HP or drop half-dead if the creature dies.

Due to this I think a lot of minion-lovers will just make Mummies/Zombies instead of Familiars/Golems due to fear of GM.

Yup.
Mummies and Zombies are awesome, if your character and his/her companions are hip with the undead.

[Axelmania]

I didn't notice that about 9th level spell version, nice catch. That's pretty scary, there's not even a damage cap on that, so in theory if a familiar took 1 MD you could take that too and die from it. I imagine some GMs will house rule a limit of "the familiar can only take as much damage as it takes to kill them" in which case you'd probably be better off taking a small one with little life.

A mouse is guaranteed to have one hit point, so the spell would boost it to 7 HP... I guess you would need to know their PE attribute to know how many damage below 0 they could take before dying (at which point the GM might cut off the damage transfer) but I don't know if PE is listed for most animals.

I do notice that the Shifter is a bit better off. The OCC ability only says "if the familiar is hurt, the mage will feel its pain as well" but nothing about taking equivalent damage. Plus they get a nice +1 vs mind control and poison that the spell version doesn't give.

Buffing is a good idea, agreed. Some ideas....

The Energy Field Generator (main 96 RUE 135) protects mage "and his belongings" which you could say could include a familiar. The generators are 10 feet apart and the field surrounds them, so that seems like plenty of room even for several animals. Downside is being limited to ley lines... but that's a nice place to be if you're a mage anyway since the PPE will help you cast spells, your magic is stronger, etc. It does minimize the benefit of being able to send your familiar to a distance to scout for you, but it does help protect them when you're not engaged in that and still gives the benefit of sharing their sixth sense (if cat/horse/dog)

If we can equip Naruni force fields on fairies we might be able to equip them on birds... Eowyna has a PS of 3 and can carry a belt that gives 30 MDC of protection (Mercs 74) and I don't think she has supernatural PS (based on damage among Fairies I think that is only Spriggans who might have supernatural PS) although I don't think a bird or mouse could manage PS 3... although you might be able to cast "Superhuman PS" on them so they could carry equipment.

Dogs/Cats/Horses are all psychics so they should be able to use TW devices. Their abilities are automatic and don't cost ISP so they aren't given ISP to power it, but they do have PPE so perhaps they could spend that? 4D6 PPE from a large wild cat (lion/tiger) or a horse means on average 14 which is enough to activate an Armor of Ithan enchantment for 10 PPE if you build that into some armor for them. Some would have enough for TWO activations. Large canines have 3D6 which on average is still able to power the 10. Even a domestic cat (3D4) or small dog (2D6) has a chance of having enough PPE to activate AoI. You could just measure the PPE of small animals until you found one that's good enough.

The animals' sixth sense would give them warning to activate their armor in time. Since familiars 'understand and obey any command' they will understand that they need to activate their TW armor when they sense danger, or that they will need to switch on their Naruni Force Field.

Another possibility would be to find some way of equipping some MDC armor (couldn't that Whale Singer kelp armor be done on anyone?) and then use that FoM rune that protects you after MDC armor is destroyed by converting MD>SD.

Familiars should also be able to understand your command to activate a talisman that you give them, so you could store armor spells on pet tags you put on a collar around their neck and they could protect themselves that way.

A first level Shifter who started off with 6 spells from 6-14 via a 'link to the supernatural' (main book, not the different options in RUE) could begin knowing 1 level 13 (Talisman) 1 level 8 (Metamorphosis: Human) two level 7 (Invulnerability + Second Sight) + 2 level 6 (Compulsion and Reduce Self) giving a lot of options with spells they could pass on to their Familiar. That's in addition to base knowledge like Call Lightning (attack capability, 600 feet telepathy + 300 feet spell = 900 ft range) or Time Slip.

I don't think Chameleon/Time Slip could be put on a Talisman (also why I didn't select Invisibility) since they might fall under 'illusion spells' which don't work on them.

The option of starting with level 11 'create scroll' is possible but then your familiar would need to be able to read. Unfortunately 'Eyes of Thoth' is a 5th level spell so you can't get it via "link to the supernatural" (1 level too low) and would need to go find someone to teach it to you so you could put it in a talisman for your familiar so they can read your scrolls.

Tongues is a 6th level spell so you could get it via a pact. As of RUE you could just buy a TW Communication Band, now you can activate it with just 14PPE instead of casting Tongues for 12 PPE. A cheaper option (15-30k instead of 50k, only 10 PPE to activate) is the Language Translator (page 332) just so long as you make sure it is configured to whatever languages you write your scrolls in (5 at least, up to 100 extra for reasonable prices).

TW can also solve the 'can't start with Eyes of Thoth' dilemma. EoT Reading glasses on Book of Magic 332 (along with the aforementioned Language Translator) are only 8-20k to buy, 10 PPE to activate, so you could put them on your familiar so they can be literate and read your scrolls. Compare to the 40,000 it would take to page someone to teach you a level 5 spell, pretty good deal, long as you didn't lose the glasses. If you planned on multiple minions you'd probably want to learn it though, and manufacture your own Eyes of Thoth Talismans, useful for zombies (not mummies, they can't do skills so that means they can't speak)

Another problem is animals can't normally speak our language so I think you would also need them to activate their Metamorphosis: Human talisman (to gain a tongue capable of it) along with a "tongues" talisman (so they know how to speak our language, since the Link only allows them to understand it). A possible long-term strategy for familiar users but one you can't start out with the tools for at first level.

[drewkitty ~..~]

snip...

I don't think Chameleon/Time Slip could be put on a Talisman (also why I didn't select Invisibility) since they might fall under 'illusion spells' which don't work on them.

…sinp

The Chameleon, Time Slip, and Invisibility spells as they are presented in the RBoM cause real effects.

[eliakon]

Chameleon and Invisibility are debatable...
but Time Slip is definitely a real effect and not an illusion.

As to the question of "preventative meta-gaming" I tend to see this as a side effect of the same mind set that produces what is often called the "classic munchkin" (i.e. the person that is trying to min-max the system by exploiting loop holes in ways that they know are not intended and that the GM/other players would not approve of). In my experience it shows up most strongly as a 'well if I do this thing here, which is technically 'legal', but really breaking the spirit of the game I am in, then I will be vulnerable here, here and here. Thus I need to close those vulnerabilities or I run the risk of 'wasting' resources on an exploit that will not pay off." The "I am in" is the key there. In a game where golem production is normal, where NPCs and PCs routinely make and use golems... making a golem or fifty isn't going to be a problem. But in a game where the presence of six golems in the high temple vault is a note worthy item that is remarked upon far and wide... then the idea that a first level character is going to start with thirty golems "because its technically legal" is probably not in keeping with the spirit of the game that they are in and is disruptive... which is rude to the other players.

[Willy Elektrix]

You've just got to trust the GM to do what's fair. I guess I've never felt like I've been picked on or "targeted" by the GM.

As a GM, I also never target players (that I realize). If someone's shtick is that they have a cool pet or a cool vehicle, I'm usually inclined to let them keep it so that they can have fun with it.

If I felt someone was excessively min-maxing, I would probably just have a heart-to-heart conversation with them like "Hey man, this isn't really the kind of game I want to have." Killing their character or taking away their cool stuff is pretty pointless.

[Nightmask]

You've just got to trust the GM to do what's fair. I guess I've never felt like I've been picked on or "targeted" by the GM.

As a GM, I also never target players (that I realize). If someone's shtick is that they have a cool pet or a cool vehicle, I'm usually inclined to let them keep it so that they can have fun with it.

If I felt someone was excessively min-maxing, I would probably just have a heart-to-heart conversation with them like "Hey man, this isn't really the kind of game I want to have." Killing their character or taking away their cool stuff is pretty pointless.

It also is counter-productive since it makes the players not trust the GM, if the GM demonstrates he can't be trusted he loses players and can quickly find himself GM of nothing because nobody wants to be in his games.

[eliakon]

You've just got to trust the GM to do what's fair. I guess I've never felt like I've been picked on or "targeted" by the GM.

As a GM, I also never target players (that I realize). If someone's shtick is that they have a cool pet or a cool vehicle, I'm usually inclined to let them keep it so that they can have fun with it.

If I felt someone was excessively min-maxing, I would probably just have a heart-to-heart conversation with them like "Hey man, this isn't really the kind of game I want to have." Killing their character or taking away their cool stuff is pretty pointless.

It also is counter-productive since it makes the players not trust the GM, if the GM demonstrates he can't be trusted he loses players and can quickly find himself GM of nothing because nobody wants to be in his games.

I would expand on this and say that as a GM I never target players...
If you have a shtick then attacking the shtick is just Not Cool.
If your metagaming, cheating, or otherwise being disruptive 'targeting you' wont convince you to 'repent'
and frankly... I have all the sticks anyway, what does beating up a PC prove? When I set up NPC fights, I like to use lower level book legal ones. Because its easy to challenge people with higher level people who are more powerful than the party... my personal goal is to see if I can challenge the party with weaker people... as a challenge to myself, it is one of the ways that I get to have fun here.

If a person is being disruptive I will take them aside and have a talk with them about what is going on, ask them to stop and see if we can come up with alternatives. If they don't want to do that, then I will offer some other tables where they may be more welcome to play, or invite them to run a game.

It is interesting the number of people who change styles after they themselves have had to GM a bit. I have several good friends who are now great GMs that got started because they didn't like the "limiting decisions" of the GMs in the circle... Some changed style. And some run some truly wild, over the top epic games of which I can only stand back in awe and say "wow, I wish I could do that" and try to emulate as best I can.

[flatline]

We usually leaned towards characters that were relatively self-sufficient (magic users, supers, supernatural critters) so that we wouldn't haven't worry about such things as repairing armor, charging e-clips, etc.

Is that what you're talking about?

We weren't so much worried about the GM picking on us as we were the setting making such things hard to find reliably.

--flatline

[Nekira Sudacne]

I question that creating lots of Golems would be a very in-character thing to do, unless you tend to play professional paranoiacs.

For one, SDC damage doesn't cease to exist in Rifts. Impact and Fall damage even through armor is a thing, and I imagine vehicle wreaks, falling off ladders, and workplace accidents still exist. if you lose all your SDC making golems, you're going to feel really crappy when falling out of a window winds up killing you instead of bandits.

For another, golems are fairly limited in how much help they are in an MDC enviroment. the average group of low level high-tech bandits could take out dozen of them without breaking a sweat. they can't fight ranged, they can't use weapons, and are slower than the average person. so even a ragtag group of city rats and headhunters could zap them all from long range with absolutely zero chance of suffering harm. Golems are ludicriously easy to Kite--just casually jog backwards, or turn and run, pausing every 40 feet to stop, turn around, and shoot. Golems can't catch you. Who cares if they take half damage from your dinky laser rifle attacks if they can never close to deal any damage to you in turn. In 10+ years of playing Rifts i've never seen someone bother creating golems. Their statblocks are so unimpressive and so useless for Rifts combat it's never been worth the time, even for a character with hundreds of SDC. I'm not even sure they're much good as distractions for your GM to target--once it becomes clear they will never reach you to threaten you, I imagine they would ignore the golems completely until all players or NPC's who can actually shoot back are delt with.

Golems have only exactly one use: as guards of stationary objects, such as a room where someone is sleeping or in front of treasure, where they can physically block someone from passing through. but sinse whoever attacks them can still simply casually jog backwards while shooting and be sure to win, they are good for nothing more than delay.

[Killer Cyborg]

I question that creating lots of Golems would be a very in-character thing to do, unless you tend to play professional paranoiacs.

For one, SDC damage doesn't cease to exist in Rifts. Impact and Fall damage even through armor is a thing, and I imagine vehicle wreaks, falling off ladders, and workplace accidents still exist. if you lose all your SDC making golems, you're going to feel really crappy when falling out of a window winds up killing you instead of bandits.

From an in-character perspective, it's not even about dying--it's about getting seriously hurt more easily. If you trip and fall on the ground for 1 SDC, but you don't have any SDC, then that's 1 HP gone, which hurts.
It's no longer just "shrug it off," and it's into serious pain.
That's an in-character reason not to deplete all of your SDC, at any rate.
Of course, a mage with lot of SDC could build a number of golems, and still be perfectly healthy and non-fragile.

For another, golems are fairly limited in how much help they are in an MDC enviroment. the average group of low level high-tech bandits could take out dozen of them without breaking a sweat.

That depends entirely on what you consider to be "the average group of low-level high-tech bandits," how common you think that they're going to be encountered, and what kind of Golem you have.

Take the Typical High-Tech Bandits from the back of the RMB; they have 80 MDC each, and a "heavy damage type weapon" along the lines of a NG-P7, L-20, or C-14 Fire breather.
Going with NG-P7s, they'll do an average of 25 MD per successful attack.

A basic stone/clay golem has 35 MDC (regenerates 1d6/melee), has a Horror Factor of 16, inflicts 2d6 MD per punch or full-speed ram.
35 MDC isn't much, but golems take 1/2 damage from most attacks, including energy attacks. So even a basic stone golem effectively has more like 70 MDC.
Inflicting 25 MD per attack, it would take one of the bandits 3 (successful) average attacks to drop a golem, which means that it would take 36 successful average attacks to drop a dozen stone golems.

If your "average group of bandits" has a dozen bandits, this would only take about 3 rounds of attacks, less than one melee. Depending on distance, the golems might not even get into range to dish out damage against the bandits.
But I tend to have an "average group of bandits" be more like 4-6, so it could take twice up to 6 rounds of attacks to drop that many golems unimpeded. Then again, they might well not be unimpeded, because there's the mage who controls the golems, and he can do stuff too.
If he drops a Cloud of Smoke or something, that could help his golems get into melee range.
If he tells his golems "destroy their weapons" (or has trained them to go after weapons first, then they could break a number of expensive guns at the very least.
If he tells his golems "bear hug them, then fall over" the group of bandits could end up pinned helplessly if the dice don't go their way. It's hard for most bandits to grapple against creatures with Supernatural PS 25.

The worst case scenario might find the bandits pitted against a dozen Iron Golems with diamond hearts.
In that case, the stats would be about the same, except each golem would have 160 MDC each, which would net out to an effective 320 MDC each, which would mean a combined total of 3840 MDC.
With 25 MD per successful strike from the bandits, that'd mean about 154 successful attacks would be needed to drop the golems.
Even if there's a dozen bandits, that's about 13 attacks each before the fight is over.

I'd count that sort of thing as "breaking a sweat."
And the odds are good that your golems would all be fine again the next day.

Then again, if your "average group of high-tech bandits" has power armor, dozens of bandits, and/or more powerful weapons, then sure, not much problem.

Even then, I'd rather have a some golem bodyguards at first level than to not have them.
Combat aside, having a loyal servant (or a handful of them, or more) that never tire, that have supernatural PS of 25, that don't need to eat or breath, would be pretty awesome.
Just to carry loot, for example.
Or pull a cart.
Or set up camp.
Or any number other things that a dim-witted but loyal servant could do.
If you have more than one, that's just more possibilities.

they can't fight ranged, they can't use weapons,

Nothing I'm aware of states that they can't use weapons.
They might not have any WPs, but you don't need WPs for melee weapons, and they could still fire Wild with guns and such if you armed and instructed them.

and are slower than the average person.

Yup.
That's a definite downside.

so even a ragtag group of city rats and headhunters could zap them all from long range with absolutely zero chance of suffering harm. Golems are ludicriously easy to Kite--just casually jog backwards, or turn and run, pausing every 40 feet to stop, turn around, and shoot. Golems can't catch you.

On an infinite plane, when you're fighting only golems, yeah, that works.
But how often does that kind of combat actually happen in-game?
And remember--we're talking about golems under the control of a first-level mage, who is probably going to be in a party of PCs. Something as simple as a mage casting Fly As The Eagle on one or more of the golems could change the game up signifiantly, as could the PCs moving around to flank you as you do your hit-and-run attacks on the golems.

Who cares if they take half damage from your dinky laser rifle attacks if they can never close to deal any damage to you in turn. In 10+ years of playing Rifts i've never seen someone bother creating golems. Their statblocks are so unimpressive and so useless for Rifts combat it's never been worth the time, even for a character with hundreds of SDC. I'm not even sure they're much good as distractions for your GM to target--once it becomes clear they will never reach you to threaten you, I imagine they would ignore the golems completely until all players or NPC's who can actually shoot back are delt with.

You play at a more powerful level than many Rifts players. For most people, an effective 320 MDC and supernatural PS of 25 is significant, and that's just the base.
Slap some armor on them.
Slap a Naruni Force Field on them.
Slap some guns in their hands.
Teach them to use jetpacks, or MDC bicicycles, or whatever. Or buff them with magic items that increase their speed. Or use teleport them into melee range. Or fly overhead and drop them onto the enemies. Or cast Invisibility on them to help them get into range.
There's a lot that can be done with Golems in most campaigns.

Golems have only exactly one use: as guards of stationary objects, such as a room where someone is sleeping or in front of treasure, where they can physically block someone from passing through. but sinse whoever attacks them can still simply casually jog backwards while shooting and be sure to win, they are good for nothing more than delay.

Jogging backward while shooting is going to be firing Wild.
Against some villains, yeah, they'll just be a delay... but sometimes delaying the enemy can turn the tide of battle.

I agree that they're in many ways at their best when they're used to guard stationary objects, though, especially in high numbers.
They've got an IQ of 6 to start, which means that having a lot of golems with you is going to be in some ways like herding a large number of super-powerful children... and that's not always worth the trouble.

Then again, a lot depends on what you and your PCs have access to, especially as you level up.
Get a few magic rings from the Palladium Fantasy world, and that IQ 6, SPD 8 clunker becomes a companion with an IQ 11 and SPD 18.

Even without that, they have far more than "exactly one use" for a creative player.
Dress them in body armor that looks just like yours, and you have a body double to fool snipers.
Add bike-pedals to a vehicle, and you have a vehicle that never runs out of fuel.
Carve them to look like powerful undead creatures, robots, or elementals, and you can potentially run a bluff on people.
Carve them to look like figures of art, and you can use them to infiltrate enemy strongholds or to as part of a museum heist.
Build them in such a way that if they huddle around you at night, their bodies interlock to form a MDC shelter.
Design one that serves as body armor, or that at least has a safe built into it to hide valuables.

We're talking about a game setting where people discuss weaponizing Magic Pigeons.
There are plenty of ways to use golems.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I think a lot of our disagreement comes from how you interpret their stats. They have an IQ of 6, which puts them either on par with a human child or a high end anamalistic predator, but the fact it clearly says they "cannot understand complex commands" puts a harsh limit on what they can do. using a gun to do anything other than fire wildly would be impossible, as aiming would be a complex series of instructions and unlikely to be of any use beyond point blank range. Same with piloting jetpacks. Casting fly as the eagle or some other speed boosting spell does have some valid use I suppose, and would let them catch mundane opponents. I suppose my bias of "And even if they did 2d6 MDC per attack is pitiful damage" is more from my being used to the higher-end of the spectrum.

Dressing the golem in body armor is something I hadn't considered, I was under the impression that the minimum size was 8 feet, making them useless for body double purposes (unless you are playing a large race of course), but they can actually be 6 feet, so there is some merit to that.

[dragonfett]

Just where does it say that Golems can learn?

Also, why can't their arms/hands be built with weapons (like giant vibro-swords)?

[Killer Cyborg]

I think a lot of our disagreement comes from how you interpret their stats. They have an IQ of 6, which puts them either on par with a human child or a high end anamalistic predator, but the fact it clearly says they "cannot understand complex commands" puts a harsh limit on what they can do. using a gun to do anything other than fire wildly would be impossible, as aiming would be a complex series of instructions and unlikely to be of any use beyond point blank range. Same with piloting jetpacks.

"Shoot at those guys" is NOT a complex command.

RUE 282
An IQ of 5 or 6 means the character is slow, dim-witted, and probably rather child like. His level of comprehension is roughly equal to an 8-10 year old child.

I don't know of any 8-10 year old children who don't understand the concept of shooting bad guys.

Somebody with an IQ of 5-6 can--according to RUE-- learn to read or write at 2nd or 3rd grade level, can learn Basic Mechanics or Automotive Mechanics, Domestic skills, Horsemanship, Physical skills, Weapon Proficiencies, and Wilderness skills.
They "avoid skills that require a lot of practice, study, and details," but the list of stuff that are "too complex" for them to learn includes stuff like Locksmith, Mechanical Engineer, and Aircraft Mechanics."

I could see a GM ruling that piloting a jetpack might be too much for them, but I can see GMs allowing it as well.

Casting fly as the eagle or some other speed boosting spell does have some valid use I suppose, and would let them catch mundane opponents. I suppose my bias of "And even if they did 2d6 MDC per attack is pitiful damage" is more from my being used to the higher-end of the spectrum.

2d6 MD per attack isn't great, I agree. If a dozen golems dogpile the same guy and pummel him, that'd add up to 24d6 MD, which is pretty respectable in most circles.
In melee, I'd probably have them do more grappling--something that again depends on how GMs interpret things.

If you take the time to teach your golem Wrestling, that'd give it the ability to Pin on 18+.
That could be useful if you have a lot of golems, just by increasing the odds of one of them rolling a successful Pin attack.

Dressing the golem in body armor is something I hadn't considered, I was under the impression that the minimum size was 8 feet, making them useless for body double purposes (unless you are playing a large race of course), but they can actually be 6 feet, so there is some merit to that.

Even if it's bigger than normal humans, though, there are plenty of bigger-than-human characters who wear body armor; you can get it in all sorts of sizes in Rifts Earth.
Another possibility would be simply giving them a shield, and having them hold it in front of their torso.

[Nekira Sudacne]

i'm not saying cannot understand complex commands is a limitation of IQ 6, I'm saying golems cannot understand complex commands as a limitation of golems because the spell itself says it's a limit on golems.

It cannot speak, nor read, nor understand complex commands

It's not the IQ, it's the Golem itself.

[Killer Cyborg]

Again, you are only looking at their IQ stat. "Cannot understand complex commands" is a limit over and above their IQ stat. Reading and writing is explictly out, as would be any other task that would require more than a few words to understand. learning skills would also be out, as they are learning complex instructions by definition.

Not at all.

Saying "Read this book" is NOT a complex command. It's very simple.
It might be an impossible command for an illiterate to follow, but it's a very simple command.

Teaching somebody to read is also not a complex command--it's a series of very, very simple commands, stuff so simple that children a LOT younger than 9-10 are able to learn to read successfully.

Their inability to follow complex commands is limiting, but all it would mean would be that teaching them to do things requires more time and effort than with somebody more intelligent.

Even telling them "Keep the enemy pinned down" wouldn't be a complex command. Again, as a command, it's very simple, including only one task--a task that people/children/golems could be trained to do, using a series of simple commands over time.
Telling them, "Keep the enemy pinned down until we flank them, then drop your rifles, draw your swords, and charge into melee range to attack them" would be a fairly complex command, and golems might have difficulty following that one.

But just doing something that you know how to do is not a complex command.

[Killer Cyborg]

Also, consider this:

Under your interpretation of the behavior/abilities of Golems, a pretty high-level spell is rendered essentially useless by your estimation.
Under my interpretation of the behavior/abilities of Golems, then a pretty high-level spell is useful and potentially powerful, but not game-breaking or anything.

Is it more likely that:
a) Palladium intended for this high-level spell to be useful?
or
b) Palladium intended for this high-level spell to be essentially useless?

If a), then even if you believe that my interpretation is technically incorrect for some reason, it seems likely to me that my interpretation is more in spirit with the intended function of the spell.
If b), then heck... that's a pretty weird thing for them to intend.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Actually i'm more thinking this spell was intended for Palladium Fantasy where it was origionally published, a much lower powered setting where Golems are a lot more useful even under my interpretation, and it just dosn't translate well to a setting with firearms. A powerful, slow moving juggernaught is pretty damn useful when the majority of opponents are mortals in light to medium armor the golem can smash through in one or two hits, while ordinary swords and axes take forever to chip through the golems massive SDC pile at half damage--even heavily enchanted swords will take multiple melee rounds to chip through.

Also, making a nuclear reactor can be broken down to "a series of extremely simple commands" if you spread it out long enough, because ultimately all complex things are just the interactions of really simple physical principles. I am thinking that the "cannot understand complex commands" was meant to be a limitation against doing exactly the kind of thing you are thinking of. which is why the limitation was made seperate from the IQ.

[eliakon]

I guess the question is if your going to allow someone to argue that there is no such thing as a complex command and thus get to weasel word away the limit of the spell.
My feeling is that any command that is complex is complex. Regardless of how many sub steps are involved.
You can't tell a golem to pick up a gun and shoot someone.
You might be able to tell a golem to pick up a gun. Then to point the gun at a person. Then to pull the trigger... etc...
But I am not inclined to believe that just because you can break something down into an arbitrarily simple sub-group that you can say the over all command is simple.

I am also not sure that Golems can be taught skills... (that is fully a GM call)

[Nekira Sudacne]

I guess the question is if your going to allow someone to argue that there is no such thing as a complex command and thus get to weasel word away the limit of the spell.
My feeling is that any command that is complex is complex. Regardless of how many sub steps are involved.
You can't tell a golem to pick up a gun and shoot someone.
You might be able to tell a golem to pick up a gun. Then to point the gun at a person. Then to pull the trigger... etc...
But I am not inclined to believe that just because you can break something down into an arbitrarily simple sub-group that you can say the over all command is simple.

I am also not sure that Golems can be taught skills... (that is fully a GM call)

Eh, i'm fine with golems being able to shoot wildly, just not aim.

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually i'm more thinking this spell was intended for Palladium Fantasy where it was origionally published, a much lower powered setting where Golems are a lot more useful even under my interpretation, and it just dosn't translate well to a setting with firearms. A powerful, slow moving juggernaught is pretty damn useful when the majority of opponents are mortals in light to medium armor the golem can smash through in one or two hits, while ordinary swords and axes take forever to chip through the golems massive SDC pile at half damage--even heavily enchanted swords will take multiple melee rounds to chip through.

Sounds like the spell needs an adjustment for Rifts Earth.

Also, making a nuclear reactor can be broken down to "a series of extremely simple commands" if you spread it out long enough, because ultimately all complex things are just the interactions of really simple physical principles.

Yes, ultimately.
That's why the IQ cap on learning complex skills is important.

I am thinking that the "cannot understand complex commands" was meant to be a limitation against doing exactly the kind of thing you are thinking of. which is why the limitation was made seperate from the IQ.

What's your basis for that line of thinking?

[Killer Cyborg]

I guess the question is if your going to allow someone to argue that there is no such thing as a complex command and thus get to weasel word away the limit of the spell.

Nobody is arguing that.
I even gave an example of a complex command in my post.

My feeling is that any command that is complex is complex.

Agreed; any command that consists of many different and connected parts is by definition complex.
But commands such as "Shoot the enemy" only has one part, and is by definition simple.

You can't tell a golem to pick up a gun and shoot someone.

Why not?
Heck, even if you think that "pick up the gun and shoot somebody" constitutes "complex," because the command has a whopping two different parts ("pick up the gun" and "shoot somebody"), you could always break it down into two simple commands instead.

You might be able to tell a golem to pick up a gun. Then to point the gun at a person. Then to pull the trigger... etc...

They have an IQ of 60, and RUE describes what that IQ entails.
Golems aren't brain-dead, just a bit simple.

But I am not inclined to believe that just because you can break something down into an arbitrarily simple sub-group that you can say the over all command is simple.

Whether or not a command is simple depends on the complexity of the command itself, by definition, NOT on the complexity of following the command out.
It's about understanding the command--not about understanding all the things necessary to carry out the command.
That's why it's a "complex command," not a "complex skill" or "complex task."

Saying "Walk across the room," for example. Is that simple?
Yes, because there's only one element to the command itself, even though really there are nigh infinite sub-sets involved in the overall task of walking across the room.
Lift right foot by bending your knee.
Move right foot forward.
Set right foot down.
Shift your weight forward until your right foot supports your weight.
Lift left foot.
(Repeat, taking into account all the elements involved in basic balance and motor function, until they've crossed the room).

"Walk across the room" is a simple command.
A person who has been taught how to walk will find the command rather easy, but that doesn't mean that the command is either simple or complex.
A person who has not been taught (and has now learned) how to walk will find the command essentially impossible, but that doesn't mean that the command is either simple or complex.

I am also not sure that Golems can be taught skills... (that is fully a GM call)

Agreed.


As I essentially said to Nekira, when I'm a GM, and I have to choose between an interpretation that leaves a high-level, high-cost spell rather useless, and in an interpretation that leaves a high-level, high-cost spell rather useful, I err on the side of usefulness.
Other GMs are free to rule the other way, as the rules are unclear on this point enough that any way the GM decides, it's going to be a house rule.

[Nekira Sudacne]

KC: Shoot at them is a simple command. shooting at them with any degree of accuracy is complex, explaining how to use sights and scopes and such, hence why they could only fire wild. and if you can't follow that because it's complex, you certainly can't learn W.P. Rifle. and if you accept that as complex, then wrestling is out 3x as hard with all the myriad different positions and moves and such. and so any. even something as simple as baking a cake is a complex series of instructions. which is why I say, if you follow the spirit of complexity, no skill is simple enough to understand because all are complex. Considering golems have no skills by default, i'm inclined to beleive this is how they are intended to work.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC: Shoot at them is a simple command. shooting at them with any degree of accuracy is complex, explaining how to use sights and scopes and such, hence why they could only fire wild.

I get where you're coming from, but no.

A "complex command" is a command that is complex, not a command to perform a complex task.

Do you understand the distinction?

[Nekira Sudacne]

KC: Shoot at them is a simple command. shooting at them with any degree of accuracy is complex, explaining how to use sights and scopes and such, hence why they could only fire wild.

I get where you're coming from, but no.

A "complex command" is a command that is complex, not a command to perform a complex task.

Do you understand the distinction?

You can command it "shoot at those guys", that dosn't mean it knows how to actually perform the command given. It does not have any W.P.'s, so its safe to assume it has no idea how to do it. My point is that any attempt at teaching is itself a complex command, even if you break it down to really simple steps.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC: Shoot at them is a simple command. shooting at them with any degree of accuracy is complex, explaining how to use sights and scopes and such, hence why they could only fire wild.

I get where you're coming from, but no.

A "complex command" is a command that is complex, not a command to perform a complex task.

Do you understand the distinction?

You can command it "shoot at those guys", that dosn't mean it knows how to actually perform the command given.

100% agreement.
This does not affect whether or not the command itself is complex, only whether or not the command can be followed.

Similarly, giving a golem the command "Take over the universe" would be a simple command, but since the golem (I think it's safe to assume) wouldn't have any idea how to go about attempting to fulfill that simple command, the golem would likely not do anything at all.
Or it might ask for for clarification.

It does not have any W.P.'s, so its safe to assume it has no idea how to do it.

It does not have any WPs to start, so it's safe to assume that it has no idea how to do the things that are specifically allowed by WPs.
You and I agree that WPs are not necessary to fire a rifle, though.
Some level of understanding and familiarity with the weapon are necessary, of course. If a golem or a human who has never even seen a rifle is told to pick up a rifle and to "shoot those guys," the command itself is simple enough--it's just not a command that is able to be fulfilled, because the person or the golem won't understand what is meant, nor how to accomplish it.

But if a person or a golem was familiar with firearms, then they could attempt to fulfill the simple command to the best level of their ability.
If the person or golem lacked the appropriate WP, then they could at best fire Wild and not be able to reload.
If the person or golem had the appropriate WP, then they could fire accurately, and could reload (and clean, etc.) the weapon.

My point is that any attempt at teaching is itself a complex command, even if you break it down to really simple steps.

Teaching cannot be a "complex command," because teaching is not a "command" of any kind.
Teaching is a process.
It may involve a series of commands, or it may not.
Any commands involved might be complex, but they might be simple.

Telling a Golem "I'm going to teach you how to fire a rifle" is not a command, therefore it is not a complex command.
Telling a Golem "Watch what I do" is a command, but it is a simple command.
Picking up a rifle is not a command.
Flicking off the safety is not a command.
Aiming the rifle is not a command.
Squeezing the trigger is not a command.
Engaging the safety is not a command.
Setting the rifle down is not a command.

Telling the Golem "Now repeat what I just showed you" is a command, but it is a simple command because the command itself is composed of only one element.

A complex command would be if you told the golem, "Pick up the rifle, flick off the safety, aim the rifle at the target, squeeze the trigger, engage the safety, and set down the rifle," because then it would be a command that consists of many different and connected parts.

In the sentence, "A golem can not follow complex commands," the word "complex" is an adjective that modifies the plural noun "commands."
It refers specifically to commands that are complex, not to commands to perform complex tasks.

The rule that we have--the Rule As Written--only addressed the command itself, the act of communicating to the golem.
It is the complexity of the communication that is the issue, not the complexity of any physical actions associated with the communication.

I'm going over all of this so that we start on the same page, looking at the same rule from the same direction, even if we may diverge from that point.

The only thing that the book restricts golems on is being able to understand specific complex communications, NOT performing any kind of complex task.

Fee free to argue that the Rule As Intended is that they cannot do anything physically complex, but that is not what the Rule As Written states.

Also, keep in mind that RUE 282 considers Automotive Mechanics to officially NOT be "a complex skill."
It considers Horsemanship or a Weapon Proficiency to be "a simple skill."
I am highly skeptical Palladium they would consider a "complex command" to be a command to utilize a basic function of a simple skill, and am likewise skeptical that they would consider teaching a simple skill to be a more complex process than using and understanding that simple skill (again, like Auto Mechanics) would be.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. There's some information that might help determine simple commands for a Golem from things too complex.

In many respects, a Golem is like a mummy, only bigger and tougher. It can not speak, nor read or understand complex commands. It has no emotions, no fears, and is like a robot waiting for a direction.

This says a Golem is like a Mummy. So let's look at the Mummy.

Like a machine, the barely intelligent "thing" follows simple orders to the best of its ability. The mummy is incapable understanding complex commands, or performing any skills. [snip] A simple command like "Kill all who enter" (with the exception of the mage, of course) is all that it needs to know.

This tells us that a Mummy can't perform skills (and we can deduce they can't learn skills if they can't perform them). This also gives us a sample command ("kill all how enter") which we can use to get at least some idea. Judging by this, I'd say that "Shoot those guys" (with a point) would be a simple command. It gives the Golem both direction and a command. For further expansion, let's look at the Zombie.

The zombie is more intelligent than the mummy and can speak, read simple signs and sentences, perform simple tasks and even drive a car. This means a zombie(s) can be sent to retrieve an artifact, follow somebody, kidnap a person and so on.

Now the Zombie has an IQ of 7, a Mummy an IQ of 4, and the Golem an IQ of 6. However, by the wording of the spells, the Golem seems to fit the Mummy in command level. This means that the examples of the Zombie tasks are probably too complex for a Golem (regardless of intellect).

If I had to make a ruling on this (based on the available evidence), Golems can perform complex tasks if given orders step by step. I'll try to describe what I'm thinking with an example. Take a remote control robot. It's remote control, so not smart enough to perform the task on its own (like a Golem). But, you can control it to do something more complicated. Of course, something that requires fine tactical controls might end in disaster. Ask the robot (or Golem with different strength than you) to put two things together, it might smash them together while trying to put them together. However, if you're careful and micro-manage, you might be able to pull it off.

As for how well a Golem can shoot, that should fall under the category of "No Weapon Proficiency" found on page 328 of RUE. The Golem can shoot without bonuses, but it doesn't say anything about having to fire wild. The Golem can NOT make aimed or called shots (but that doesn't equal firing Wild either), and suffers additional penalties if firing a burst or certain types of weapons.

Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[dragonfett]

Then give it a WI-GL4/21 Grenade Launcher (or the TX-146 Rotary Grenade Launcher from Rifter 51 p. 60) loaded with grenades that have a moderate blast radius. Even on a miss the enemies will probably still be in the blast radius.

Or if you want to go the cheap rout, buy a SD .50 cal machine gun, load it with WI-20 Heavy Ramjet rounds and have the Golems fire at a general area.

[Killer Cyborg]

Greetings and Salutations. There's some information that might help determine simple commands for a Golem from things too complex.

In many respects, a Golem is like a mummy, only bigger and tougher. It can not speak, nor read or understand complex commands. It has no emotions, no fears, and is like a robot waiting for a direction.

This says a Golem is like a Mummy. So let's look at the Mummy.

Like a machine, the barely intelligent "thing" follows simple orders to the best of its ability. The mummy is incapable understanding complex commands, or performing any skills. [snip] A simple command like "Kill all who enter" (with the exception of the mage, of course) is all that it needs to know.

This tells us that a Mummy can't perform skills (and we can deduce they can't learn skills if they can't perform them). This also gives us a sample command ("kill all how enter") which we can use to get at least some idea.

A mummy may not be able to perform/learn skills, but it's not clear whether or not that's one of the ways that a Golem is like a Mummy or not.

Judging by this, I'd say that "Shoot those guys" (with a point) would be a simple command.

Agreed.
For that matter, even lacking guns, orders such as "Defend me" or "Kill the intruders" would be simple commands, regardless of what kinds of steps/actions a Golem or Mummy might need to take (within its parameters of understanding/planning/action) in order to fulfill such commands.

It gives the Golem both direction and a command. For further expansion, let's look at the Zombie.

The zombie is more intelligent than the mummy and can speak, read simple signs and sentences, perform simple tasks and even drive a car. This means a zombie(s) can be sent to retrieve an artifact, follow somebody, kidnap a person and so on.

Now the Zombie has an IQ of 7, a Mummy an IQ of 4, and the Golem an IQ of 6. However, by the wording of the spells, the Golem seems to fit the Mummy in command level. This means that the examples of the Zombie tasks are probably too complex for a Golem (regardless of intellect).

"Kidnap a person" is a pretty interesting example, because that could include a large number of complex steps/actions involved in the operation.
I'd say that in the example, the Golem's IQ (6) is closer to that of the Zombie (7) than of the Mummy (4), and therefore the behavior and capabilities would be closer to the Zombie level than to the Mummy level.

If I had to make a ruling on this (based on the available evidence), Golems can perform complex tasks if given orders step by step. I'll try to describe what I'm thinking with an example. Take a remote control robot. It's remote control, so not smart enough to perform the task on its own (like a Golem). But, you can control it to do something more complicated. Of course, something that requires fine tactical controls might end in disaster. Ask the robot (or Golem with different strength than you) to put two things together, it might smash them together while trying to put them together. However, if you're careful and micro-manage, you might be able to pull it off.

Agreed, as long as you give the orders piecemeal.

As for how well a Golem can shoot, that should fall under the category of "No Weapon Proficiency" found on page 328 of RUE. The Golem can shoot without bonuses, but it doesn't say anything about having to fire wild. The Golem can NOT make aimed or called shots (but that doesn't equal firing Wild either), and suffers additional penalties if firing a burst or certain types of weapons.

Agreed, unless the GM rules that you can teach a Golem skills.

[ShadowLogan]

I do agree a Golem can be more useful with the right approach. Though I think it is likely going to be rare to see anyone with more than a 1/2 dozen golems given the SDC cost and SDC of mages (base/skills/etc) because beyond that I think you run into paying the SDC cost with HP. For an MDC creature I'm not sure if they can even make them or how to handle the SDC cost.

Also, why can't their arms/hands be built with weapons (like giant vibro-swords)?

Golemancy in the Rifter (#25 IIRC) has that as an advanced option IINM. However based on the generic version description that might violate how the ritual is supposed to be performed "Second, he sculpts a Golem (humanoid shape) from clay" (per description), so weapon arm/hand might violate that given the vast majority of humanoids in Palladium don't have weapon limbs naturally.

Agreed, unless the GM rules that you can teach a Golem skills.

Or a Magic (TW) device to grant them the skill (using "Instil Knowledge).

[Prysus]

Now the Zombie has an IQ of 7, a Mummy an IQ of 4, and the Golem an IQ of 6. However, by the wording of the spells, the Golem seems to fit the Mummy in command level. This means that the examples of the Zombie tasks are probably too complex for a Golem (regardless of intellect).

"Kidnap a person" is a pretty interesting example, because that could include a large number of complex steps/actions involved in the operation.
I'd say that in the example, the Golem's IQ (6) is closer to that of the Zombie (7) than of the Mummy (4), and therefore the behavior and capabilities would be closer to the Zombie level than to the Mummy level.

Greetings and Salutations. For simplicity and to save space, I only quoted the part where we, more or less, will disagree.

Now, I agree with that a Golem's I.Q. is closer to a Zombie than a Mummy, and if that were the only determining factor I'd agree that we should use the Zombie's command level as a guideline. However, I said "by the wording of the spells." There's more than just the I.Q. listed.

1: The book tells us "like a mummy," not "like a zombie." The book also gives us a differential: "only bigger and stronger." Now there are likely to be other differences as well (we'll see those listed), but unless other information is provided, we should default to "like a mummy" since that is what the book tells us. Note: This is Palladium, so maybe they meant like a Zombie, but instead used the first spell that was similar (Mummy comes first in the list of spells).

2: Golem's "can not speak, nor read or understand complex commands." Mummies are "incapable of understanding complex commands" and " can not speak (or read)." Meanwhile, Zombies "can speak, read simple signs and sentences," and there is NO mention of not being able to follow complex commands. Note: Okay, so a Golem doesn't seem very much like a Zombie at all in their listed limitations.

3: If we used only I.Q., then their reading limitations don't make sense. Mummies should be able to learn skills (but the book tells us they cannot). Golems should be able to read (but the book tells us they cannot). Zombies should be able to read more than just simple signs and sentences (equal to a 12 to 15 year old). The descriptions of low I.Q. was also created after the spells. As an individual, I just don't think Palladium would go back and make sure every NPC and spell and stat ever written would meet those standards exactly. They don't come off as that detail orientated to me.

If I had to venture a guess as to the purpose of I.Q., it is their ability to follow those commands and problem solving. So when faced with an enemy using say, hit and run tactics, how well can they adapt. When told to "kill anyone who tries to enter" the Mummy would probably just try to walk/run up and hit anyone approaching (der), while the Golem might think to pick up that nearby gun and shoot (rather basic, but still effective), and the Zombie might actually set up traps beforehand and also uses the nearby gun when someone actually approaches (I would NOT underestimate a 12-15 year old). So while their limitations are their limitations, their I.Q. reflects their comprehension and problem solving.

Now, as a counterargument, the Zombie spell does state: "The zombie is more intelligent than the mummy and can ..." then lists the other things it can do (such as speak and read). This could be used to argue the difference is only intellect, but (as an individual) I don't think this is strong enough to override #1 (above) or the other evidence currently available. As an individual, I don't much care. However, if I had to make a ruling as close to "as written" and/or "as intended," the evidence suggests to me that the Mummy is the template we should use (because that's what the Golem write-up tells us). Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Killer Cyborg]

I do agree a Golem can be more useful with the right approach. Though I think it is likely going to be rare to see anyone with more than a 1/2 dozen golems given the SDC cost and SDC of mages (base/skills/etc) because beyond that I think you run into paying the SDC cost with HP. For an MDC creature I'm not sure if they can even make them or how to handle the SDC cost.

I always played that once you're out of SDC, you can't make golems. Hit Points aren't SDC, so they don't count.
MDC technically isn't SDC either, so the same would apply if the GM adheres strictly to the rules: MDC creatures can't create golems.
Which is quite possibly a good idea, since if a creature is MDC to begin with, the odds are good that it has hundreds of MDC, and could afford to make more golems much more easily than an SDC mage could.

[Killer Cyborg]

Now the Zombie has an IQ of 7, a Mummy an IQ of 4, and the Golem an IQ of 6. However, by the wording of the spells, the Golem seems to fit the Mummy in command level. This means that the examples of the Zombie tasks are probably too complex for a Golem (regardless of intellect).

"Kidnap a person" is a pretty interesting example, because that could include a large number of complex steps/actions involved in the operation.
I'd say that in the example, the Golem's IQ (6) is closer to that of the Zombie (7) than of the Mummy (4), and therefore the behavior and capabilities would be closer to the Zombie level than to the Mummy level.

Greetings and Salutations. For simplicity and to save space, I only quoted the part where we, more or less, will disagree.

Now, I agree with that a Golem's I.Q. is closer to a Zombie than a Mummy, and if that were the only determining factor I'd agree that we should use the Zombie's command level as a guideline. However, I said "by the wording of the spells." There's more than just the I.Q. listed.

1: The book tells us "like a mummy," not "like a zombie." The book also gives us a differential: "only bigger and stronger." Now there are likely to be other differences as well (we'll see those listed), but unless other information is provided, we should default to "like a mummy" since that is what the book tells us. Note: This is Palladium, so maybe they meant like a Zombie, but instead used the first spell that was similar (Mummy comes first in the list of spells).

2: Golem's "can not speak, nor read or understand complex commands." Mummies are "incapable of understanding complex commands" and " can not speak (or read)." Meanwhile, Zombies "can speak, read simple signs and sentences," and there is NO mention of not being able to follow complex commands. Note: Okay, so a Golem doesn't seem very much like a Zombie at all in their listed limitations.

Fair points.


At the same time, a Golem is "like a robot," and I think it's only fair to also look like at robots.

SB1 95 Robot Drones or Simple Intelligences
These bots follow very limited and direct programs, like seek and destroy or labor. They do not question, nor speculate, nor do they vary from their program, the bot simply does its assigned task without hesitation and exactly as programmed. If a bot is programmed to clean a house, it will perform all the tasks it is programmed to execute. If that program does not include straightening the carpets or moving furniture to clean underneath them, the robot will not do so. Nor will it wash windows unless that is part of its program.

Even the simplest intelligence of robots can be taught/programmed to perform certain tasks; where their simplicity comes in is in being unable to improvise.
But such tasks include any number of more complex tasks, including "seek and destroy" or "clean the house," tasks which involve any number of steps and factors, which the robot is able to accomplish without problem as long as its mind contains the set of instructions necessary to accomplish the task.

A Golem may be "like a mummy" in certain ways, but the mummy description specifies that they cannot perform skills, and the golem description does not.

3: If we used only I.Q., then their reading limitations don't make sense. Mummies should be able to learn skills (but the book tells us they cannot). Golems should be able to read (but the book tells us they cannot). Zombies should be able to read more than just simple signs and sentences (equal to a 12 to 15 year old).

This interpretation depends entirely on whether you interpret "cannot read" to mean "is incapable of being able to read."
I've known many people who "cannot read."
Once upon a time, I myself could not read.
But once I learned how to read, then I could.

The descriptions of low I.Q. was also created after the spells. As an individual, I just don't think Palladium would go back and make sure every NPC and spell and stat ever written would meet those standards exactly. They don't come off as that detail orientated to me.

Agreed.
At the same time, it does demonstrate what they think that an IQ of 6 should and should not be capable of. Their view might have chanced since the original Golem spell was written, and Palladium might have a much more liberal interpretation of such a person's capabilities today than they used to.
Or it might well be the same today as it was then.

If I had to venture a guess as to the purpose of I.Q., it is their ability to follow those commands and problem solving. So when faced with an enemy using say, hit and run tactics, how well can they adapt. When told to "kill anyone who tries to enter" the Mummy would probably just try to walk/run up and hit anyone approaching (der), while the Golem might think to pick up that nearby gun and shoot (rather basic, but still effective), and the Zombie might actually set up traps beforehand and also uses the nearby gun when someone actually approaches (I would NOT underestimate a 12-15 year old). So while their limitations are their limitations, their I.Q. reflects their comprehension and problem solving.

Now, as a counterargument, the Zombie spell does state: "The zombie is more intelligent than the mummy and can ..." then lists the other things it can do (such as speak and read). This could be used to argue the difference is only intellect, but (as an individual) I don't think this is strong enough to override #1 (above) or the other evidence currently available. As an individual, I don't much care. However, if I had to make a ruling as close to "as written" and/or "as intended," the evidence suggests to me that the Mummy is the template we should use (because that's what the Golem write-up tells us). Farewell and safe journeys for now.[/justify]

If the difference is NOT only intellectual, then wherein does the difference lie?
If low IQ and a lack of learning isn't the cause for a Golem's inability to read, what IS?
If a low IQ is not the reason for the inability to follow complex commands, what IS?

[ShadowLogan]

I do agree a Golem can be more useful with the right approach. Though I think it is likely going to be rare to see anyone with more than a 1/2 dozen golems given the SDC cost and SDC of mages (base/skills/etc) because beyond that I think you run into paying the SDC cost with HP. For an MDC creature I'm not sure if they can even make them or how to handle the SDC cost.

I always played that once you're out of SDC, you can't make golems. Hit Points aren't SDC, so they don't count.
MDC technically isn't SDC either, so the same would apply if the GM adheres strictly to the rules: MDC creatures can't create golems.
Which is quite possibly a good idea, since if a creature is MDC to begin with, the odds are good that it has hundreds of MDC, and could afford to make more golems much more easily than an SDC mage could.

I can agree on the MDC cost, but the tricky part is that you could travel to an SDC dimension and do it there (Land of the Damned 2 IINM in PF2E line has a scarecrow with several Golems, but in Rifts a Scarecrow would be MDC). So I don't necessarily see MDC as a stopping point, but it could push the requirements up a bit.

The SDC I'm not sure on, since SDC excess can pass over into HP. And every level Hit Points can potentially replace a "Golem" cost.

If the difference is NOT only intellectual, then wherein does the difference lie?
If low IQ and a lack of learning isn't the cause for a Golem's inability to read, what IS?
If a low IQ is not the reason for the inability to follow complex commands, what IS?

Is it possible that the magical mechanisms for a Golem animation vs Zombie/Mummy animation are different to such an extent that while the end products are similar (robot servants), but the intervening stages go about it differently (sort of like DVD vs CD, or various computer game platforms, gasoline vs deseal engine, etc).

A Golem may not be able to read due to the proper sensory organs would be my guess (yes they have gems for eyes, but they might perceive things differently that written language is "invisible to them or things are out of focus for them). As for complex commands, in all cases it might come down to translation and that the required language is overly simple so "complex commands" can't be translated.

[Killer Cyborg]

I do agree a Golem can be more useful with the right approach. Though I think it is likely going to be rare to see anyone with more than a 1/2 dozen golems given the SDC cost and SDC of mages (base/skills/etc) because beyond that I think you run into paying the SDC cost with HP. For an MDC creature I'm not sure if they can even make them or how to handle the SDC cost.

I always played that once you're out of SDC, you can't make golems. Hit Points aren't SDC, so they don't count.
MDC technically isn't SDC either, so the same would apply if the GM adheres strictly to the rules: MDC creatures can't create golems.
Which is quite possibly a good idea, since if a creature is MDC to begin with, the odds are good that it has hundreds of MDC, and could afford to make more golems much more easily than an SDC mage could.

I can agree on the MDC cost, but the tricky part is that you could travel to an SDC dimension and do it there (Land of the Damned 2 IINM in PF2E line has a scarecrow with several Golems, but in Rifts a Scarecrow would be MDC). So I don't necessarily see MDC as a stopping point, but it could push the requirements up a bit.

That would be a way to bypass it.

The SDC I'm not sure on, since SDC excess can pass over into HP. And every level Hit Points can potentially replace a "Golem" cost.

Since the SDC cost isn't technically damage, it technically cannot affect Hit Points.
However, I'd consider running things where HP cost could be paid, since there would be some obvious downsides to spending HP, even if they are able to be replenished.

If the difference is NOT only intellectual, then wherein does the difference lie?
If low IQ and a lack of learning isn't the cause for a Golem's inability to read, what IS?
If a low IQ is not the reason for the inability to follow complex commands, what IS?

Is it possible that the magical mechanisms for a Golem animation vs Zombie/Mummy animation are different to such an extent that while the end products are similar (robot servants), but the intervening stages go about it differently (sort of like DVD vs CD, or various computer game platforms, gasoline vs deseal engine, etc).

A Golem may not be able to read due to the proper sensory organs would be my guess (yes they have gems for eyes, but they might perceive things differently that written language is "invisible to them or things are out of focus for them). As for complex commands, in all cases it might come down to translation and that the required language is overly simple so "complex commands" can't be translated.

It doesn't seem likely, because there is no mention of Golems being otherwise visually impaired.
I don't see it as a physical limitation, because I can't think of any such limitation that would affect only reading.

[Prysus]

At the same time, a Golem is "like a robot," and I think it's only fair to also look like at robots.

Greetings and Salutations. True, but it also tells us that a Mummy is "a sort of humanoid robot devoid of emotions and fearless. Like a machine ..." (RBoM, page 139). When we look at the text for the Golem it reads: "It has no emotions, no fears, and is like a robot waiting for a direction." Basically the same as a Mummy (again), only they changed up the order of words this time. I had actually meant to include that comparison in my previous point #2, but must've gotten distracted and forgot.

A Golem may be "like a mummy" in certain ways, but the mummy description specifies that they cannot perform skills, and the golem description does not.

I agree the Mummy specifies it cannot learn skills and the Golem write-up does not. However, I keep coming back to the fact that the paragraph that tells us a Golem is like a Mummy is basically a paragraph right out of the Mummy passage rearranged and reworded slightly.

At the same time, it does demonstrate what they think that an IQ of 6 should and should not be capable of. Their view might have chanced since the original Golem spell was written, and Palladium might have a much more liberal interpretation of such a person's capabilities today than they used to.

Or, what I view more likely, Palladium picked rather arbitrary numbers.

If the difference is NOT only intellectual, then wherein does the difference lie?
If low IQ and a lack of learning isn't the cause for a Golem's inability to read, what IS?
If a low IQ is not the reason for the inability to follow complex commands, what IS?

I don't have an answer beyond random limitations. However, Mummies and Golems (from what I can tell) are setup more like semi-autonomous puppets more than servants. Maybe whatever wizard created the spell didn't want anything more than an overgrown watchdog. Maybe s/he was afraid the Golems would one day lead an uprising and overthrow their master. I seriously have no clue. Wish I had a better answer, but I don't. Farewell and safe journeys for now.


Edit: Though ask some of those same questions regarding the Mummy.

If a low IQ is all that's stopping it from reading, why can't it speak (but a Zombie can)? People with an IQ of 4 can speak.
If a low IQ is the only difference, why can't Mummies learn skills (people with an IQ of 4 can learn some skills)?

[Killer Cyborg]

At the same time, a Golem is "like a robot," and I think it's only fair to also look like at robots.

Greetings and Salutations. True, but it also tells us that a Mummy is "a sort of humanoid robot devoid of emotions and fearless. Like a machine ..." (RBoM, page 139). When we look at the text for the Golem it reads: "It has no emotions, no fears, and is like a robot waiting for a direction." Basically the same as a Mummy (again), only they changed up the order of words this time. I had actually meant to include that comparison in my previous point #2, but must've gotten distracted and forgot.

A Golem may be "like a mummy" in certain ways, but the mummy description specifies that they cannot perform skills, and the golem description does not.

I agree the Mummy specifies it cannot learn skills and the Golem write-up does not. However, I keep coming back to the fact that the paragraph that tells us a Golem is like a Mummy is basically a paragraph right out of the Mummy passage rearranged and reworded slightly.

With some parts of the Mummy description left in, and others omitted, after the introductory line "In many respects, a Golem is like a mummy, only bigger and tougher."
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to assume that the respects listed are those in common, and the ones omitted are not in common.

At the same time, it does demonstrate what they think that an IQ of 6 should and should not be capable of. Their view might have chanced since the original Golem spell was written, and Palladium might have a much more liberal interpretation of such a person's capabilities today than they used to.

Or, what I view more likely, Palladium picked rather arbitrary numbers.

In what way?

If the difference is NOT only intellectual, then wherein does the difference lie?
If low IQ and a lack of learning isn't the cause for a Golem's inability to read, what IS?
If a low IQ is not the reason for the inability to follow complex commands, what IS?

I don't have an answer beyond random limitations.

So no in-game explanation?

From my point of view, it seems more consistent to assume that the limitations are intellectual limitations, and that such limitations are reflected by IQ scores that correspond roughly to the creatures' respective capabilities.
Mummies and Golems can't follow complex commands because they're not very bright.
Zombies are bright enough to follow more complex commands.

Seems pretty streamlined, with little left hanging.

However, Mummies and Golems (from what I can tell) are setup more like semi-autonomous puppets more than servants. Maybe whatever wizard created the spell didn't want anything more than an overgrown watchdog. Maybe s/he was afraid the Golems would one day lead an uprising and overthrow their master. I seriously have no clue. Wish I had a better answer, but I don't. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

I guess it depends on how you mean "semi-autonomous puppets."
When you have a mage order his Golem (or Mummy) to attack the enemy, how do you picture it working?
Does the mage just say, "Attack!", and the Golem decides how?
Or does the mage have to baby-step the Golem through the process of attacking, telling him "Walk toward that guy!", "Reach out with your hands!", and "Now close your hands around his neck!"...?

With a puppet, the guy holding the strings controls every movie.
With a robot, you can tell it to do things, and as long as it's programmed on how to do those things, it can do them.

I envision a Golem as being much more like a robot than a puppet.
I envision a Mummy as being much more like a robot than a puppet, except that a Mummy also specifically cannot use any skills.

Edit: Though ask some of those same questions regarding the Mummy.

If a low IQ is all that's stopping it from reading, why can't it speak (but a Zombie can)? People with an IQ of 4 can speak.

Fair question, and I don't have a great answer.
My initial assumption would be that it can't speak because it's a corpse, and its vocal cords are consequently messed up, not to mention a lack of breathing making it hard to make sounds.
BUT the description does specify that a Mummy "grunts, growls, and howls," which seems to make that assumption unlikely.
It could still be a physical limitation, but since the sentence includes a parenthetical restriction on reading right after the restriction on speaking, I would indeed say that it seems more of a mental restriction than a physical restriction.

Notice that (RUE 284) a person with IQ of 4 "cannot learn to read or write." NOT just that they "can not read or write," but that they cannot even learn how to read or write.

It could be possible that a Mummy "can not read" because of it's IQ score simply being too low--so low that it can not even learn to read--and that it "can not talk" simply because it does not know how, although it has that intellectual potential.

If a low IQ is the only difference, why can't Mummies learn skills (people with an IQ of 4 can learn some skills)?

This question goes back to my earlier comment that it's a GM's Call whether or not a Golem can learn skills. I didn't fully explain then, but that decision isn't based on IQ, but rather on the nature of the Golem itself--it's not alive.
A GM could rule that Golems are more magical objects than magical creatures, and consequently they are do not possess the same inherent capabilities that can be assumed for creatures.
If a creature has an IQ of 6, it could be assumed to be able to learn some skills.
If an object has an IQ of 6, it may or may not be able to learn some skills. Intelligent objects are never really addressed--all IQ descriptions refer to "the character" being able to do or not do certain things, but objects are not necessarily characters.

[Prysus]

At the same time, it does demonstrate what they think that an IQ of 6 should and should not be capable of. Their view might have chanced since the original Golem spell was written, and Palladium might have a much more liberal interpretation of such a person's capabilities today than they used to.

Or, what I view more likely, Palladium picked rather arbitrary numbers.

In what way?

Greetings and Salutations. I think we both, more or less, understand the other's point of view. I don't think we're going to agree either. Mind you, I only disagree with you from a strictly rules viewpoint, and not in general principle. However, I will do my best to answer your questions.

As for the arbitrary numbers, I don't think that Palladium really stopped and considered what a person with attributes of 4, 6, & 7 could and could not do. I believe that, more likely, they decided something won't be very smart and gave it a low IQ, in this case 4. It could have just as easily been a 3 or a 5. So they pick numbers they think represent whether something is smart or stupid, but not necessarily specific numbers that best represent the exact degree of stupidity or brilliance. If we're lucky, they at least look at their other creations and decide higher or lower than other things that already exist, but I wouldn't entirely count on that either.

I enjoy Palladium games, but I don't get the impression Kevin loves rules crunch (I get quite the opposite impression really). Those numbers having specific numbers would indicate a level of detail to game mechanics I don't expect from Palladium. They're ballpark numbers to give you a basic idea, but the problem with a ballpark number is that in cases like that, it leaves a lot of room conflict. If they picked numbers like 3, 4, & 5, or 2, 4, & 6, the concept would remain and yet this conversation would change. While we can assert meaning into the exact figures they chose, I don't think they put a great deal of thought into those numbers personally.

From my point of view, it seems more consistent to assume that the limitations are intellectual limitations, and that such limitations are reflected by IQ scores that correspond roughly to the creatures' respective capabilities.
Mummies and Golems can't follow complex commands because they're not very bright.
Zombies are bright enough to follow more complex commands.

Except, as you pointed out, Golems are much closer to Zombies in their I.Q. score. Do you think we found the threshold for being able to follow complex commands and not?

I guess it depends on how you mean "semi-autonomous puppets."
When you have a mage order his Golem (or Mummy) to attack the enemy, how do you picture it working?
Does the mage just say, "Attack!", and the Golem decides how?
Or does the mage have to baby-step the Golem through the process of attacking, telling him "Walk toward that guy!", "Reach out with your hands!", and "Now close your hands around his neck!"...?

With a puppet, the guy holding the strings controls every movie.
With a robot, you can tell it to do things, and as long as it's programmed on how to do those things, it can do them.

I envision a Golem as being much more like a robot than a puppet.
I envision a Mummy as being much more like a robot than a puppet, except that a Mummy also specifically cannot use any skills.

I'd say you can say attack and it would do its best to attack without you getting that specific, though if you want it to attack a certain way you better get detailed. However, I don't think they have sentience and I'm not convinced it's one of those things you can teach either. Either it knows, or it doesn't know.

If you wanted an analogy or something, and since we're discussing robots, I'd think of it more like a robot that's memory is already full and it's read only. You can delete something to make it learn something new, and you can't add anything.

Or maybe a better analogy would be a robot without the ability to learn. You keep discussing how they can do what they're programmed to do. However, that would mean that Golems need to be programmed to learn, and their I.Q. is independent of that fact. Think of Terminator 2. In their, we hear Arnold (a robot in the movie) say how he's programmed to learn. With the deleted scenes, we hear how that's been disabled (and they have a scene where they had to reactivate his ability, otherwise he couldn't do it). With Zombies, Mummies, and Golems, they're pre-programmed, and we have no way to add new programming without ... well, new magic. We're not given the indication they're programmed with the ability to learn.

Note: Trying to describe exactly what I'm thinking in words is difficult. I have enough trouble normally, and this is trying to describe a game rule someone else wrote into a concept they didn't detail.

However, I also have an issue with using robots to try and describe them. Robots run a very large range of intellect. Some are smarter than humans, some can only follow basic commands, and some can't do anything at all with direct control. For example, how much can a Titan Combat Robot do without a pilot? Can you tell it to attack and it'll attack on its own and decide how to do so? Those are also robots.

A GM could rule that Golems are more magical objects than magical creatures, and consequently they are do not possess the same inherent capabilities that can be assumed for creatures.

This, to me, seems the best explanation really. Golems were never alive, and even human Mummy or Zombie don't have the same brain. The original human intellect wouldn't matter. Whether the individual originally had an IQ of 30 or an IQ of 3, once they're dead and reanimated they have a set IQ created through the magic. None of the three have free will or any indication of independent thought. All their IQ really seems to represent (in my opinion) is their ability to carry out orders. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Axelmania]

We aren't really told that zombies/golems/mummies can't learn (nor animated dead or shadow beasts, but that's largely moot since they won't stick around long enough to learn a skill, 22 hours per week for 9-14 weeks for a secondary based on the updated Rogue Scholar, 10-16 hours per week for 3 semesters, approximately 1.5-2 school years if using HU2p48)

The Chameleon, Time Slip, and Invisibility spells as they are presented in the RBoM cause real effects.

Chameleon and Invisibility are debatable...
but Time Slip is definitely a real effect and not an illusion.

Rereading my post I realized I got my wires crossed, I had intended to write Shadow Meld in place of Time Slip.

the idea that a first level character is going to start with thirty golems "because its technically legal" is probably not in keeping with the spirit of the game that they are in and is disruptive... which is rude to the other players.

I'm not sure anyone can legally start with them. The Shifter Magic O.C.C. starts with an ability which allows them to form a link which can let them learn it. They say 'his choice' referring to the shifter (I figure that means the character chooses in-character what spells he wants (RPing discussed collaboratively with player and GM as to what is IC) as opposed to the player choosing (a player's desire for spells he wants his character to have could be different than what the player would want) or the supernatural force choosing or the GM choosing.

Whether or not the Shifter can negotiate a link in the first place is still RPing with the GM. Also it's unclear if they can get any spell from those levels no matter what or if they can only choose spells from those levels which the supernatural force knows. Like in the case of bonding to a greater being like a greater elemental, could you only choose the spell magic available to greater elementals?

Shifters would also have to procure the proper supplies (unless they coincidentally start off with animal blood, onyx and an iron heart as their 'black market items', not likely) which could be difficult (imagine how hard it is to mold iron into the shape of a heart! master smith territory, how much will that cost?)

as a GM I never target players...

A familiar or golem is fuzzy though since they could be considered a companion or gear, they are the player in the limited sense that they represent permanently sacrificed life though, if lost.

GMs might sacrifice equipment to prove a point and it isn't the end of the world since you could always replace the equipment someday (usually) but even though it is possible to build another golem or bond another familiar, you still lost the life points forever, so I'm more paranoid about creating those bonds than of acquiring equipment.

Even with equipment: isn't there a tendency to do things like spend credits on spells (which are hard to lose, I imagine you'd have to get mind-wiped permanently for that) or bio-wizardry (also hard to lose if it's bonded to you, or a permanent increase) than on stuff like cybernetics which can get snatched, guns which can be stolen, etc?

I question that creating lots of Golems would be a very in-character thing to do, unless you tend to play professional paranoiacs.

For one, SDC damage doesn't cease to exist in Rifts. Impact and Fall damage even through armor is a thing, and I imagine vehicle wreaks, falling off ladders, and workplace accidents still exist. if you lose all your SDC making golems, you're going to feel really crappy when falling out of a window winds up killing you instead of bandits.

A learned mage who can make golems generally isn't going to plan on falling out of windows though, and in those cases it's probably better to have a 'float in air' talisman for the emergency than to rely on SDC to let you survive falls.

For another, golems are fairly limited in how much help they are in an MDC enviroment. the average group of low level high-tech bandits could take out dozen of them without breaking a sweat. they can't fight ranged, they can't use weapons, and are slower than the average person. so even a ragtag group of city rats and headhunters could zap them all from long range with absolutely zero chance of suffering harm. Golems are ludicriously easy to Kite--just casually jog backwards, or turn and run, pausing every 40 feet to stop, turn around, and shoot. Golems can't catch you. Who cares if they take half damage from your dinky laser rifle attacks if they can never close to deal any damage to you in turn. In 10+ years of playing Rifts i've never seen someone bother creating golems. Their statblocks are so unimpressive and so useless for Rifts combat it's never been worth the time, even for a character with hundreds of SDC. I'm not even sure they're much good as distractions for your GM to target--once it becomes clear they will never reach you to threaten you, I imagine they would ignore the golems completely until all players or NPC's who can actually shoot back are delt with.

Golems have only exactly one use: as guards of stationary objects, such as a room where someone is sleeping or in front of treasure, where they can physically block someone from passing through. but sinse whoever attacks them can still simply casually jog backwards while shooting and be sure to win, they are good for nothing more than delay.

Their initial 35/80 MDC wasn't all that impressive but that was introduced in a time of lower power levels.

You're completely right about range issues, which is why they wouldn't be all too useful on wide open plains. They seemed to me like something you would put inside a large base with lots of turns so that a golem could park himself around a corner and just grab/punch people as they turn the corner. Ranged attacks wouldn't help unless the attack could somehow do a 90 degree turn and hit the golem. I guess throwing grenades could work but those are expensive, and also make sneaking into a base difficult. A grenade would probably wake the mage up and let him summon a shadow beast to go help the golem or something.

I didn't get the impression they were banned from using weapons, although I understand the assumption. Compare other minions originally:

5th Animated and Control Dead (RMB178) "Damage: 1D6 from punch, bite, claw or blunt weapon. Modern weapons, such as guns of any kind can not be used by animated dead."
10th Summon Shadow Beast (RMB184) "Damage: 1D6 MD" .. "Damage: 6D6 SDC"
11th Create Mummy (RMB185) "2D6 SDC damage by hand/punch" .. "can be dressed in MDC body armor and given hand held weapons like swords and clubs. They are not capable of shooting guns or using equipment"
12th Create Zombie (RMB187) "2D4 SDC damage by hand/punch or by weapon. Guns can be used, but at -4 to strike"
13th Create Golem (RMB188) "1D6 MD damage by hand/punch"

Golems seem to be in the same boat as Shadow Beasts. Weapon use is not discussed for either of them, but it isn't banned either, like guns are banned for mummies and animated dead. The "blunt weapon" part of animated dead is strange... pretty sure there's summoned skeletons using bladed weapons too, there was even skeleton archers in the Tombs of Gersidi quest.

Shadow Beasts have the same IQ as a zombie so I think they ought to be able to use guns, but maybe with the same -4 penalty since it's probably not instinctive for them either. Like a zombie they ought to be able to use ancient weapons without penalty... except I'm not really that clear on Shadow Beast anatomy. They are 9-12 feet tall and have "sharp claws" so their hands are probably too big to operate a human-sized gun, and it might be awkward for them to try and hold weapons. We don't even know if they have prehensile hands, for all I know the claws on the shadow beast are on a paw.

We do have a picture of a golem... but golems could range from 6 to 18 feet in the main book. The one in the picture looks in the middle around 12 feet based on the size of the human he's reaching for. Golems don't necessarily have to have 2 fingers and 1 thumb like the one in the picture either. It should have been originally possible to sculpt a human-size golem with human-proportionate hands, and in that case, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing them from using hand-held weapons. They are smarter than mummies who can use them, after all. The only question is whether they could use guns like a zombie. If a GM did say yes then they should at least get the -4 like the zombie, if not a heavier penalty due to IQ being one lower.

Having a hand made of stone/iron could also make gripping a weapon sort of awkward, since there's no give, holding the weapon could be pretty slippery, so I could see a GM reasonably ruling on combat penalties if a golem used a weapon instead of their fist. Putting a pair of gloves on the golem could probably solve this problem though, and give them some better grip. I'd penalize at LEAST -1 to strike/parry with weapons on a gloveless golem. Only exception would be if you strapped weapons to them like those vibro-blade gauntlets the CS Dog Pack uses in Lone Star, since then their ungiving grip wouldn't be an impediment.

Even limiting them to HTH though (true to concept) and even ignoring their clear value in guarding closed quarters with walls protecting them from ranged attacks, they seem really useful as beasts of burden for carrying things or providing an alternative target so nobody aims at you.

If you are some 5 ft tall mage with an 18 ft tall golem, they may be viewed as the primary threat. A missile might be aimed at them, and even if it is destroyed, it would regenerate the next day unless your enemy had the proper lore skills to know to remove the heart.

A basic stone/clay golem has 35 MDC (regenerates 1d6/melee), has a Horror Factor of 16, inflicts 2d6 MD per punch or full-speed ram.
35 MDC isn't much, but golems take 1/2 damage from most attacks, including energy attacks. So even a basic stone golem effectively has more like 70 MDC.
Inflicting 25 MD per attack, it would take one of the bandits 3 (successful) average attacks to drop a golem, which means that it would take 36 successful average attacks to drop a dozen stone golems.

If we're going to consider the 1D6/melee regeneration added in Book of Magic (not present originally) then we may as well double the MDC to 70 or 160 since any mage of intelligence would sacrifice 8000 credits to get a diamond to use, to make their sacrifice all the worthwhile.

It's hard to think of situations where a mage would even bother with a non-diamond and/or non-iron golem. Maybe where they are utterly destitute and need one in a hurry they'll skip the MDC-doubling diamond core instead of waiting? Or could that possibly be inserted into the iron heart at a later date without killing the golem? Choosing to have the clay become stone instead of iron only seems to make sense if you plan on trying to sneak it through metal detectors or fight people with magnetic abilities.

and are slower than the average person.

Yup. That's a definite downside.

True... but is there anything preventing a golem from using a Talisman of (L5) Superhuman Speed (30mph) and/or (L7) Fly as the Eagle (50mph) and/or (L8) Winged Flight (25x5=Spd 125 = ~85mph, or 30x5=150 = ~102mph if using Superhuman Strength) to increase their mobility?

Something as simple as a mage casting Fly As The Eagle on one or more of the golems could change the game up signifiantly, as could the PCs moving around to flank you as you do your hit-and-run attacks on the golems.

Yup, and Impervious to Energy on a golem could also create some problems.

Slap some armor on them.
Slap a Naruni Force Field on them.

The stone/iron skin might cause some problems with chafing in armor, although padding might help... golems look kinda blocky so even with a height given the art implies they're thicker than us, may not fit too snugly. Probably doable (maybe with some GM penalties) in larger suits.

Teach them to use jetpacks, or MDC bicicycles, or whatever.

Wouldn't that require Pilot: Jetpack or Pilot: Bicycle skills? Although as of RUE the Rogue Scholar finally has the ability to give secondary skills to people...

I suppose my bias of "And even if they did 2d6 MDC per attack is pitiful damage" is more from my being used to the higher-end of the spectrum.

You must've hated the original version even more since they only did 1D6 MD/attack before BoM doubled it to reflect the SNPS tables from the Conversion Book.

Personally I think it should work like dragons: they originally had 2D6 MD and now it's 2D6 (claws) + SNPS damage. The 1D6 should be from how stone/iron is hard and be a bonus so SNPS so golems ought to to 3D6 or 4D6 per attack.

If you take the time to teach your golem Wrestling, that'd give it the ability to Pin on 18+.

Since Wrestling isn't available as a secondary skill the Rogue Scholar option isn't present... so we'd need some other way. You'd basically need to go the standard route of teaching the golem an OCC. An adequate amount of OCCs lack IQ requirements so maybe this is feasible, but the golem would need to earn XP somehow.

I don't think you get XP for stuff minions do so it'd be nice to know the potential XP from their actions goes to some use. Also makes mummies/zombies/golems more interesting over time as they become growing NPCs instead of static equipment. Something not offered by duration-limited animated dead or Magic Warrior / Warrior Horde / Phantom Horse unless you can permanence ward them.

Saying "Read this book" is NOT a complex command. It's very simple.
It might be an impossible command for an illiterate to follow, but it's a very simple command.

Teaching somebody to read is also not a complex command--it's a series of very, very simple commands, stuff so simple that children a LOT younger than 9-10 are able to learn to read successfully.

So with "can not speak, nor read" you take the first as a physical impediment but the second as simply informing us they don't come with that skill but not that it's a learning disability so they could learn to do it later or have it magically imparted via Eyes of Thoth?

Compare to "the zombies is more intelligent than the mummy and can speak, read simple signs and sentences"

Is simple signs/sentences only a zombie's built-in capability and then you can develop more advanced literacy skills with time?

It makes me wonder if this ritual is assuming an already-literate person's corpse (retaining some minor skills of the previous life) or if it's meant to imply that the magic imparts the ability to read signs/sentences (simple ones) even to the corpse of an illiterate person.

For the dumber version, the "a mummy can not speak (or read)" seems to be an extension of "incapable of understanding complex commands, or performing any skills" (language and literacy being skills).

In either case it's still not clear if this is just talking about initial abilities (ie mummy doesn't come built knowing language/literacy, zombies do, at an unspecified low level) or absolute potential abilities (mummies can never learn skills, vs simply not being able to perform skills AT FIRST, because they aren't built knowing any)

Mummies and Golems: are they unable to understand complex commands FOREVER, or only at first until they gain skills which then allow them to understand those commands? Also how do we determine what is 'complex' except for the (well-needed) low attribute penalties/limits in RUE?

This says a Golem is like a Mummy. So let's look at the Mummy.

Keeping in mind that a golem is IQ 6, putting it closer to a Shadow Beast or Zombie (IQ 7) than a Mummy (IQ 4). Golems are smarter than the average animalistic predator you rolled at the back of RMB (~5 on 2D4)

we can deduce they can't learn skills if they can't perform them

Or perhaps you just can't perform skills if you don't have any skills, kind of like I can't cast spells if I don't know any spells.

by the wording of the spells, the Golem seems to fit the Mummy in command level. This means that the examples of the Zombie tasks are probably too complex for a Golem (regardless of intellect).

This may simply reflect the Create Zombie ritual imparting basic language/literacy skills, something the Mummy/Golem rituals do not impart, so they would need to be taught separately.

MDC technically isn't SDC either, so the same would apply if the GM adheres strictly to the rules: MDC creatures can't create golems.

Which is quite possibly a good idea, since if a creature is MDC to begin with, the odds are good that it has hundreds of MDC, and could afford to make more golems much more easily than an SDC mage could.

We should allow trickery to get around this though. Page 53 of Rifts Africa says that Thoth has an army of 200 golems. This is a lot more believable if it cost him a mere 1200 SDC (12 MDC) instead of 1200 MDC (given he thinks he only has ~14k that's nearly 10%, a lot to sacrifice). Given that Thoth knows all spell magic, this may include all Temporal magic, which may include the Paradox Spells in Spirit West... so a knowledgeable MDC mage like Thoth might simply cast "Universal Balance" on himself, then sacrifice his temporary SDC, then revert to being MDC again.

I don't know how that would work breaking it into 6 SDC portions though... maybe you come back 1 MDC short but with 94 floating SDC?

Even if permanently losing 6 SDC while under Universal Balance meant permanently losing 1 MDC when it ended, that would still minimize the cost to Thoth to 200 MDC permanently lost for his golem army, which is a more believable sacrifice than point>point meaning he shorted himself over a thousand.

Or yeah what ShadowLogan said, just go to an SDC dimension (astral plane, HU, PF). Most MDC mages won't know Universal Balance so that might be the only way, although it makes it a lot less efficient than what I propose to be Thoth's strategy. Some Scarecrows might know the required magic for it too.

[Killer Cyborg]

Greetings and Salutations. I think we both, more or less, understand the other's point of view. I don't think we're going to agree either. Mind you, I only disagree with you from a strictly rules viewpoint, and not in general principle. However, I will do my best to answer your questions.

Well, from a strictly rules viewpoint, what we have is that mummies are specified as not being able to use skills, and golems are NOT specified as not being able to use skills.
We have a rule that golems can not read, but we don't have a rule that they can not be taught to read.
We have a rule that states that golems have an IQ of 6, and we have rules describing what an IQ of 6 is capable of.

Looking strictly at the rules, Golems can (as of RUE, at least) do every sort of intellectual thing that anybody else with an IQ of 6 is capable of, excepting only those capabilities which golems are expressly denied.

As for the arbitrary numbers, I don't think that Palladium really stopped and considered what a person with attributes of 4, 6, & 7 could and could not do. I believe that, more likely, they decided something won't be very smart and gave it a low IQ, in this case 4. It could have just as easily been a 3 or a 5. So they pick numbers they think represent whether something is smart or stupid, but not necessarily specific numbers that best represent the exact degree of stupidity or brilliance. If we're lucky, they at least look at their other creations and decide higher or lower than other things that already exist, but I wouldn't entirely count on that either.

Gotcha.
And I can't really argue that it's possible that they put little to no thought into the matter.

I enjoy Palladium games, but I don't get the impression Kevin loves rules crunch (I get quite the opposite impression really).

Agreed.

From my point of view, it seems more consistent to assume that the limitations are intellectual limitations, and that such limitations are reflected by IQ scores that correspond roughly to the creatures' respective capabilities.
Mummies and Golems can't follow complex commands because they're not very bright.
Zombies are bright enough to follow more complex commands.

Except, as you pointed out, Golems are much closer to Zombies in their I.Q. score. Do you think we found the threshold for being able to follow complex commands and not?

We're not told that Zombies are unable to follow complex commands, therefore it seems likely that they are in fact able to.
Which would mean that the IQ threshold for following complex commands would appear to be at IQ 7.

I'd say you can say attack and it would do its best to attack without you getting that specific, though if you want it to attack a certain way you better get detailed.

So it's capable of understanding a simple command, and choosing to the best of its ability how to carry out that command, within the parameters of its capabilities.

However, I don't think they have sentience and I'm not convinced it's one of those things you can teach either. Either it knows, or it doesn't know.

I'm not sure that sentience is required to learn.
And I've seen no real indication that a golem is incapable of learning. To me, the fact that it's given an IQ score is an indication of its ability to learn.
Intelligence is commonly defined as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills," after all.

If you wanted an analogy or something, and since we're discussing robots, I'd think of it more like a robot that's memory is already full and it's read only. You can delete something to make it learn something new, and you can't add anything.

Or maybe a better analogy would be a robot without the ability to learn. You keep discussing how they can do what they're programmed to do. However, that would mean that Golems need to be programmed to learn, and their I.Q. is independent of that fact. Think of Terminator 2. In their, we hear Arnold (a robot in the movie) say how he's programmed to learn. With the deleted scenes, we hear how that's been disabled (and they have a scene where they had to reactivate his ability, otherwise he couldn't do it). With Zombies, Mummies, and Golems, they're pre-programmed, and we have no way to add new programming without ... well, new magic. We're not given the indication they're programmed with the ability to learn.

Well explained, and I believe I understand your view, although I don't necessarily agree.

Note: Trying to describe exactly what I'm thinking in words is difficult. I have enough trouble normally, and this is trying to describe a game rule someone else wrote into a concept they didn't detail.

That's Rifts for ya!

However, I also have an issue with using robots to try and describe them. Robots run a very large range of intellect.

I went with the Drone Intelligence, since that seems the most appropriate. They're not inert vehicles/armor, and they're not really decent AIs either.

A GM could rule that Golems are more magical objects than magical creatures, and consequently they are do not possess the same inherent capabilities that can be assumed for creatures.

This, to me, seems the best explanation really. Golems were never alive, and even human Mummy or Zombie don't have the same brain. The original human intellect wouldn't matter. Whether the individual originally had an IQ of 30 or an IQ of 3, once they're dead and reanimated they have a set IQ created through the magic. None of the three have free will or any indication of independent thought. All their IQ really seems to represent (in my opinion) is their ability to carry out orders. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

I agree with all of that.
I think the point of difference is that I don't see any reason why a Golem could not be ordered to learn.
But I don't know that further discussion--as you pointed out above--is likely to change our views at this point.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Axel -- (not breaking that massive post down into parts addressed specifically to me ) -- I think there tends to be one big, unspoken dividing line between various groups of RPG players. Players who build strongholds and those who don't. Yes, if your Wizard (and by logical extension the rest of the party is collaberating) create a large safe "base" you fill with various defences, then I can see wanting to make as many golems or other reliably loyal minions as you can manage.

Personally, All of my groups have been On-The-Road kinds, never sticking around and never really having to defend a place long term, so the value of createable minions is fairly low. usually we aquire some kind of large, lightly armed transport, get realtively close to where we're going then hide it (We tend to invest a lot more into stealth magic than minions) and then go out in person to deal with things. If you are thinking in terms of defending a base, then we are dealing with completely different playstyles, and what's valuble to you might be not valuble to me and vice-versa.

[Prysus]

I think the point of difference is that I don't see any reason why a Golem could not be ordered to learn.
But I don't know that further discussion--as you pointed out above--is likely to change our views at this point.

*Nod.* And I think that really stems from how much weight we put into the reference back to the Mummy. I'm more inclined to believe Palladium wrote it once, and then just expected us to know that's the rule from then on. If they didn't refer us back to the Mummy in both the Zombie and Golem write-ups, I'd be in agreement with you. Maybe also a little bit of the fact I don't think we've ever seen a NPC write-up with extra skills. Though I'll also admit, if a player came to me and wanted to be something like a Zombie Headhunter (ordered by his master to go out and hunt down certain types of targets or something), I'd probably totally allow it. In fact, a part of me wants to see that now. >_< Farewell and safe journeys.

[Axelmania]

Even groups who don't have big fortresses often have mobile strongholds, even if it's so meager as the enclosed 10x8x8 cargo bay of a Mountaineer ATV. Keeping a golem back there in case a ratling sneaks in and tries to pilfer your fusion blocks is probably very useful, plus the golem can help you load and unload the cargo bay in addition to defending it. Since they're inside the vehicle it functions like a wall and the 140 MDC (+30 MDC per 10k you spend on it... no cap?) of armor would need to run out before the golem was targetable by ranged weapons from outside the bay.

You could also have a golem as a passenger inside a Big Boss ATV and leave them sitting inside it in case anyone tries to hotwire your Boss. Even the ATV Speedster has room for a second passenger, but in that case it doesn't look enclosed like the Boss/Mountaineer so someone could start sniping your golem... still better than them just jumping on and riding off though.

If you disguise the golem (even without armor, maybe just dress it up like a clown so people won't be able to discern it from a zombie or mummy or dum Orc hireling dressed up like a clown) then people might just blow off it's head and then go on their merry way, so you'd still get your minion back even if him being sniped prevented the theft of your hovercycle.

Another option is to just dig a shallow pit trap the golem can crouch inside. This gives them cover from horizantal blasts so someone would need to stand overtop and shoot down, and then the golem could just grab their foot. This is kind of like standing around a corner. Downside being dropped explosives or flyers with ranged weapons.

Someone would need some good lore skills and in-character incentive to investigate the 'corpse' of a disguised golem to realize and then go to the trouble of digging the heart out of the torso.

Come to think of it.... "regenerates completely within 24 hours unless its heart is removed" doesn't really say the golem 'dies' per-se if the heart is removed, does it? What if that just pauses the regeneration?

Couldn't you feasibly retrieve the stolen heart and put it back inside the chest cavity and then the golem's regeneration count-down would continue?

The main problem would be if the heart was destroyed or the chest cavity was destroyed, since then you would not have either something to put back in, or something to put it back into.

We aren't told how much MDC either of these things has though. That's the crux of the matter. Maybe they're both indestructible, maybe they only have 10 MDC each... would be nice to know. How much SDC/MDC would a heart made of iron have? If it were damageable wouldn't it have been given a damage capacity?

I'd be scared of a Promethean Temporal Wizard since they could learn that phase power which lets them recall attuned objects, they could just recall the heart if it was ever stolen, maybe in time to prevent its destruction.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I'd be scared of a Promethian temporal wizard too, but it wouldn't be because of how many golems he wasted his time making

Axel: I think we are in general agreement of how much a golem could in theory do, we merely disagree on how useful it is to have one to do those things, which has more to do with our respective playstyles and our GM's habits than it does with the actual stats of the golem. ((Although I still maintain Golems cannot learn skills under any circumstances, I think that's a point we may have to agree to disagree on))

The biggest difference is this: In most games, finding trustworthy, loyal NPC henchmen tends to be a difficult and rare thing, so making magical minions you can be 100% certain the loyalty of is good. In our games, NPC henchmen are much easier to come by, and we routinely roll around with about a dozen or so NPC henchmen fully stated out with OCC's, including magic users. thus we don't really worry about creating minions - we already have plenty.

[Axelmania]

Regarding your on-the-road playstyle though, surely your group still stops to camp out and all that right? Couldn't a golem in a tree ready to pounce down on those who disturb your sleep be helpful?

They could also be used to punch down trees to gather firewood so you don't need to waste vibro-blade batteries (however long those last) and can keep your rifles at the ready.

Or, simply to avoid fatigue, if you lack a horse or a vehicle a zombie could carry you around, saving your legs. Also useful if someone blows off your legs.

Their high strength is very useful in carting around booty. It's also not really a target for theft the way a group's APC would be since a stolen golem isn't really going to be of any value, more of a liability.

Like a magi's automaton couldn't you command a golem to "carry me away from danger if I'm knocked out" in case someone uses a sleep/stun spell on you?

They also serve in a tank roll to draw attacks from HTH monsters like Fury Beetles to prevent expensive MDC armor repairs needing to be done on the group.