"Realms with starry skies" feats

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The intent of how something is done in any given story, series, game, etc. doesn’t matter

It absolutely does. Several characters are constantly upgraded / downgraded based on intent, specially when authors are clear over what something is supposed to mean. Seeing a feat where there is supposed to be none is a real issue and it leads to wank.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

A background is not a feat lmao. Interpreting it as a feat immediately without proof is the real issue.

You know what I meant by feat here.

It absolutely does. Several characters are constantly upgraded / downgraded based on intent, specially when authors are clear over what something is supposed to mean. Seeing a feat where there is supposed to be none is a real issue and it leads to wank.

Last I checked, it isn't. Author intent means nothing in the face of what actually happens within the series, and if you know these several characters who have their statisics effected by it, by all means list them out here please.

 

[Andytrenom]

If we are giving them a rating based off 4-A dimensions, that means they either destroyed or created it, you gonna tell me neither of those are feats? What the stars show is scale, which matters even outside of vs debating, it's just mostly relevant to us

Honestly your arguments feel so divorced from anything that is being argued, it's like you are just presenting arguments that sound solid on their own without taking care of whether you are representing everything correctly.

If a pocket or alternate dimension's sky contains luminous dots in a dark background, then they are likely stars and destroying that dimension is 4-A that's the argument, I don't see why it being done to look cool is relevant, why it's a bad assumption to assume these are stars or why destroying or creating a dimension somehow isn't a feat

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Last I checked, it isn't. Author intent means nothing in the face of what actually happens within the series, and if you know these several characters who have their statisics effected by it, by all means list them out here please.

If you look at an ambiguous scene and your interpretation is demonstrably incorrect compared to what the scene is actually supposed to convey, we're not going to go with your vision.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

If we are giving them a rating based off 4-A dimensions, that means they either destroyed or created it, you gonna tell me neither of those are feats? What the stars show is scale, which matters even outside of vs debating, it's just mostly relevant to us

Way to strawman me.

My point is that "You fight a boss in a room with a fancy background and then after you defeated the boss the background is gone" is not evidence for pocket dimension creation and destruction. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

That is literally just a visual flair to make the fight more distinct and exciting.

 

[Andytrenom]

What I'm concerned with is whether you treat the size of these dimensions as 4-A. What counts towards a feat is another matter

I can see a dimension collapsing with the death of a boss not always being AP, but even then, there would be in universe reasons for why it happens, which you cannot dismiss by just saying it was done for flare.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I can see a dimension collapsing with the death of a boss not always being AP, but even then, there would be in universe reasons for why it happens, which you cannot dismiss by just saying it was done for flare.

The problem is assuming that it is a dimension that was created / collapsed in the first place. This is my problem. This is pure speculation not based on anything besides "I think it makes sense and also it gives the highest tier".

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

If you look at an ambiguous scene and your interpretation is demonstrably incorrect compared to what the scene is actually supposed to convey, we're not going to go with your vision.

Search Author Intent in the forum thread search bar and say this to me again.

Because the most recent threads no later than a month or less ago that speak of it still specify that we don’t consider or go with author intent. At all. Also:

and if you know these several characters who have their statisics effected by it, by all means list them out here please.

Don’t ignore this please. You claimed to have seen examples of this with characters, so can you please list them?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Search Author Intent in the forum thread search bar and say this to me again.

Because the most recent threads no later than a month or less ago that speak of it still specify that we don’t consider or go with author intent. At all. Also:

I did and I say it again.

If you are making up feats from where there are none and you can demonstrate that the intent was for there to be no feat at all we aren't going to upgrade a character based on it

 

[Andytrenom]

If a dimension collapses after someone's death then it's either connected to the boss's life or sustained by their power. If it's the latter that does kinda imply they created it. It has nothing to do with getting the highest tier, it's a decent enough interpretation

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

If a dimension collapses after someone's death then it's either connected to the boss's life or sustained by their power. If it's the latter that does kinda imply they created it. It has nothing to do with getting the highest tier, it's a decent enough interpretation

But you haven't proved it is a dimension is my point. You're just immediatelly assuming that's what it is.

Also, "flash of light and background change" isn't proof of dimension collapse either.

 

[Andytrenom]

Btw I agree with Matthew that author intent is relevant when figuring out a scene that isn't clear on what happened. Basically you can use author intent to judge what happens inside the confines of a work, but you cannot use it to define what it means to us

Whether the author wants something to be a feat is usually irrelevant if it provably requires some kind of AP to achieve

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Whether the author wants something to be a feat is usually irrelevant if it provably requires some kind of AP to achieve

Okay but if an author blatantly didn't intend for something to be physically strong via Fridge Logic / Physics being applied than we don't use it.

Why do we think we don't use KE for fast attacks or even moving something at high speeds? Because 99.9% of the time the character is blatantly not meant to be physically strong from their speed.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I did and I say it again.

If you are making up feats from where there are none

I'll stop right here because this isn't what we were doing, or what I was saying.

We aren't "making up feats" here, as that implies we're pulling them out of nowhere. We aren't. Because the feats in question are ones that still canonically happen and are still canonically established within the series itself. And as such, they are valid feats to be taken and rated by. The intent of the author does not at all matter at this point. Why? Because the feat was still put in and established in the series.

If author intent mattered as much as you are saying it did (which not even other staff here stand by), Sun Wukong would be having a field day here instead of having his profile deleted.

 

[Andytrenom]

Thing is there are reasons for believing it is meant to be a showcase of power, it's context dependent like everything else but if a diety dies and immediately a realm associated with them begins to fall apart, that can be taken as a hint that is was being sustained by their power and hence created by them. If there's evidence they didn't create it use that.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Thing is there are reasons for believing it is meant to be a showcase of power, it's context dependent like everything else but if a diety dies and immediately a realm associated with them begins to fall apart, that can be taken as a hint that is was being sustained by their power and hence created by them. If there's evidence they didn't create it use that.

You are dodging my point, I'm not talking about stuff like this.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

If author intent mattered as much as you are saying it did (which not even other staff here stand by), Sun Wukong would be having a field day here instead of having his profile deleted.

I don't get the point. 90% of people aren't FTL to begin with.

 

[Antvasima]

Andytrenom seems to make sense to me.

 

[Ionliosite]

where some people believe that shiny dots in background should automatically assumed to be stars by default. And the other side believes that it should just be considered visual effect unless explicitly proven to be stars.

There's absolutely no reason to assume lights on a space are stars by default. Burden of proof asks for evidence to the positive claim, which is that they are stars, since they being stars would effectively be saying that the dimension is big enough to house celestial bodies within it. Unless there's evidence that this character can create a pocket dimension of such a size, we shouldn't assume they can by default, so I'm sticking with Matthew.

 

[Sera_EX]

I still can’t follow so I’m just going to address some random points just to get my view out there since I was called here.

1. A starry sky is obviously not evidence of stellar proportions unless you consider the night sky to be multi-solar system in range. But if we generally agree on this, I don’t know what the argument is.

2. I don’t like “sustenance feats”, but that’s a completely different discussion here that exceeds just pocket realms.

3. If you are in outer fooking space and there are lights out there, they are logically stars. Stars are generally considered the things that give light to the cosmos. Assuming they aren’t stars and are just random insignificant lights is being intellectually dishonest. Granted, pocket realms are a different story. In this case if they are called stars than they clearly are but any random semblance of starry lights in a pocket realm of ambiguous size isn’t good enough to be taken seriously.

4. Even if they are stars, whether or not someone scales to it is a completely different story. Let’s not pretend other factors don’t exist, especially when dealing with something as overhyped as pocket realms.

5. Can we stop using hyper-generalized and over exaggerated examples for our arguments? Some of the stuff being claimed here, I don’t know a single verse where it’s even a thing. Start using more specific examples from specific verses so this can actually get resolved.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

There's absolutely no reason to assume lights on a space are stars by default.

There very much is a reason to assume that, and it’s been repeated here verbatim by several people.

The environment is outer space/starry sky. What’s logically the light source in outer space? Stars. Simple as that.

As such, the default assumption until something proves otherwise is that they are real stars, because that is what’s logically and commonly known as the standards light sources in a cosmic setting.

The only argument that’s been brought against this is that “we shouldn't assume”, and that isn't enough to sway this.

Burden of proof asks for evidence to the positive claim, which is that they are stars, since they being stars would effectively be saying that the dimension is big enough to house celestial bodies within it.

I’m just going to put this out there, and no offense intended for anyone here, but this idea that we need evidence for every little thing before we take even one single step forward on anything is pretty silly.

There is a difference between needing to provide evidence for a positive claim (which this isn’t the case since Andy, myself and others have explained above on why white dots appearing in a cosmic setting would and should undoubtedly be first looked at as actual stars) and outright ignoring any case of where common sense plays the role of doing its job.

And right now, we are becoming the latter. There is 0 reason to look at a starry sky with a straight face and not be, as Sera put it, intellectually dishonest and skeptical for the sake of it when claiming they are random glowing lights.

As said before, you need a reason to believe they are fake light sources in the first place.

 

[AKM sama]

1. A starry sky is obviously not evidence of stellar proportions unless you consider the night sky to be multi-solar system in range. But if we generally agree on this, I don’t know what the argument is.

Granted, pocket realms are a different story. In this case if they are called stars than they clearly are but any random semblance of starry lights in a pocket realm of ambiguous size isn’t good enough to be taken seriously.

This right there is the main point of debate. Like I said, one side thinks that a starry background in a pocket dimension should automatically be assumed to be real stars. And you're basically agreeing with me in that we shouldn't assume it by default unless it is specifically made clear.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like we are leaning towards going with only accepting feats for which it is made clear/somehow specified that many stars were created.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still think Kukui and Andy are being more reasonable overall though.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Reading through this thread, I don't really understand why Occam's Razor is being thrown around so much, and this applies to both sides here. You people have to remember that Occam's Razor is fundamentally just an useful tool, not a rule, and it is often used when choosing between two hypotheses because simpler propositions tend to be far easier to empirically verify and test compared to more complex ones; it's not really the best thing to use when what exactly qualifies as "the simpler scenario" is extremely subjective and not at all a concrete matter, which is exactly the case here, and neither does it imply that the simplest hypothesis is automatically the correct one, either way.

Even outside of that, going out of your way to argue about author intent is completely fruitless and could be applied in both directions. Death of the Author is a thing, and if the author's intent isn't clearly expressed in the work itself, then trying to grasp at it for the sake of an argument holds as much worth as a random guess, which is to say, none at all.

As for my actual stance on it: As always, I think that the actual context behind an individual feat should determine its validity. If a character creates a parallel reality that is shown to be functionally just like our own, then going out of your way to say that a starry sky is just a background comprised of fancy lights seems like an odd assumption to me, especially if the reality in question, again, is an actual, physical place and not just some vague piece of scenery superimposed over a background, like this, for instance.

This might sound a bit silly for some, but I believe the level of detail is another factor to take into account, though only when coupled with the above. If you can see a whole damn galaxy or a nebula in the skies of a dimension, then this is a different story from seeing a few white dots in the distance, and it'd take far more assumptions to say that something like this is just a product of fancy lights somewhere in the sky.

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima makes good points.

 

[Sera_EX]

This right there is the main point of debate. Like I said, one side thinks that a starry background in a pocket dimension should automatically be assumed to be real stars. And you're basically agreeing with me in that we shouldn't assume it by default unless it is specifically made clear.

Backgrounds are not skies though, but assuming you are referring to obscure backgrounds that resembles space or a night sky with stars and all that, I am certainly in favor of Matt’s position. There needs to be a reason to assume those are stars, let alone that’s even space to begin with.

I just don’t think Andy, Kukui, or the rest actually claim otherwise though and this is why I would like more specific examples because I feel that one side is addressing a point the other has never made and the other side then is defending a stance the opposition never opposed.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

This right there is the main point of debate. Like I said, one side thinks that a starry background in a pocket dimension should automatically be assumed to be real stars. And you're basically agreeing with me in that we shouldn't assume it by default unless it is specifically made clear.

Even if you think they look like stars that's not proof it is a dimension in the first space.

A boss in a sidescroller doing a screen transition where you suddenly fight him against a space background doesn't mean he created a pocket dimension. And a lot of people for a lot of verses treat that as the default assumption and never bother to show proof.

 

[Sera_EX]

Who assumes someone creates a pocket dimension via a scenery transition from an attack animation? Since you brought up sidescrollers I assume this is primarily about Nintendo and similar verses?

 

[Ionliosite]

Who assumes someone creates a pocket dimension via a scenery transition from an attack animation?

Dracula from Castlevania comes to mind, who is 4-A via changing the background of the battle during gameplay.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm with Andy. While I do agree with Matt on some things, such as one; I agree the first piece of evidence is a pocket (dimension/reality/universe) being created, not simply teleported or a character having the ability to create fancy illusions of a starry sky background with a simple hand wave. But if it's a confirmed, "Alternate Dimension" or "Entire World", Andy is right that the logical assumption is too consider the stars real unless otherwise shown or stated the stars are small or illusory.

Furthermore, created a starry sky dimension is a 4-A creation feat; usually for one specific spell. If that's technically their strongest spell, it won't scale to any other spell unless they happen to have spells that are stronger tier wise. There should be proof that it scales to other stats; there are no objections that destroying them outright are solid AP feats. A generic same energy source isn't enough in itself unless they use the same amount has evidence, but a detailed 1:1 scale if proven is fine, but there should be better clarifications on 1:1 scale.

I'm mostly ok with this stance.
Given, there should be more context taken into consideration than two words, really.
Like, if there is precedence for stars not being evidence for size in alternate dimensions (cough like in Touhou cough) then the bar should be higher. Likewise, for stuff like dimensions in virtual or fictional worlds, there is a natural assumption against real night skies.
Basically, it's weighing between different evidence. I think calling something a "dimension" or a "world" isn't strong evidence. How an ability creates a world and how it stands in relation to other places is more relevant to me. Or also stuff like the position of its creator in the cosmology and how extensive the realm is shown to be otherwise can be relevant.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out with input.

 

[KLOL506]

I also agree with DT's stance.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There's also the difference between pocket realities and actual universes to take into account, but that's a different story. I'm clearly not saying we should just assume all dimensions large enough to contain starry skies are universes; pretty much the last thing I'd agree with. But I very much thing Ultima Reality is being reasonable here.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Dracula from Castlevania comes to mind, who is 4-A via changing the background of the battle during gameplay.

1. Would be fine with downgrading Dracula actually if other verses are equally downgraded.

2. Portrait of Ruin has very clear dimension creation feats which match all of my 3 criteria above.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody summarise the current overall consensus conclusions here please?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

My bad, I’ve been busy with some IRL stuff but I’d like to make another comment here in a bit.

 

[Ionliosite]

Can somebody summarise the current overall consensus conclusions here please?

Basically, points 1 and 3 of Matt's proposal has been accepted, while point 2 (we shouldn't assume they are stars by default) is being contested by Andy and a few others.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you.

 

[Antvasima]

Bump.

We should preferably try to finish this discussion, as it is quite important.