• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Type 8 Immortality got out of hand

Eficiente

Eficiente

He/Him
VS Battles
Thread Moderator
15,422
5,014
vsbattles.fandom.com

Immortality

Immortality is the ability to simply not die by natural means for any number of reasons, ranging from simply having no limit to your lifespan, being able to regenerate from wounds that would normally be lethal, or being protected by a higher being, among other possible reasons. It should be...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

"Reliant Immortality: The character cannot die as long as a certain being, object, or even concept exists."

The vagueness of this text has led to many characters having the power based on reasons extremely diverse, if still fitting to what the text says. Here's how type 8 has been used on the wiki:
  • If you have a certain weakness that's "the only way to kill you" and said weakness also helps out by giving benefits to make you hard to kill then type 8 is given.
    • If those benefits don't exist then type 8 is also given, which is pretty much having a self-destruction button and having type 8 due to it.
  • If another (more powerful or not) being exists that you automatically & forever get benefits from to be immortal then type 8 is given.
    • If the benefits are an active decision the being does then it's still type 8.
    • If also the benefits aren't even some other type of immortality but part of the process to get other type of immortality, and then the rest is on you (vulnerable little you), then it's still type 8.
  • Similar with places, if the place just exists while being OP and the benefits are taken by you every time you need them inside a less OP parts of that place then it's type 8.
    • If the place does give you some immortality automatically but you need to reach and travel to the place by yourself when dying to make use of it by your own luck then it's still type 8.
  • And finally, the power makes it look like one's unstoppable as long as the type 8 is there, regardless of how its mechanics may just bestow type 1 immortality to the user as long as the X thing exists.
On that last bit, we can just make type 8 state that the benefits given by the power must be writen, most profile already do this anyway.

On the "self-destruction button" bit, to exemplify it better we have Chariot Requiem, who only doesn't have type 8 because I was there in the thread where it was proposed (other profiles have type 8 based on the the same mistake). The character is hard to kill via its defensive abilities, has a good regen and, alien to that, a weakness that kills it if exploited. That had to be used in-story and was said to be "the way to kill it" (w/o being the only way to it). Should it have type 8? No. Does it fit the wording we have for it? Yes, kinda. It technically won't die as long as the weakness isn't exploited, just like you won't die as long as you're not killed. It's easy to see the other powers as part of what it would make it have type 8 because we have no standards saying that the things have to be related. And while they exist many characters that can one-shot it by overpowering its regen we also have no standards saying that this matters as opposed to how this didn't matter in its story.

Really based on the type 8 description someone w/ an OP regen could have type 8 based on its own body, as it cannot die due to the regen in it. It's not that somebody would ever try that, but an example of how things that shouldn't be type 8 could easily be presented and believed to be type 8 Immortality; if that crappy example fits what we say then imagine something simply "wrong". You just have to feel like the power is taking place and that does it. If we had a more concrete description of the type as to how we use it then it would be so ridiculous legit hundreds of characters would now get the power;

"Reliant Immortality: The character gets benefited by 1 or more other types of Immortality, or part of the process for them to be achieved, as long as a certain being(s), object(s), place(s) and/or even concept(s) may grant them those benefits, losing them otherwise."

Almost the same but more sincere with its low standards, leading into things like this;
  • Videogame characters getting type 8 via X item that revives them when they die.
  • Characters getting type 8 via an X place they can go to heal themselves, especially if they can go there as souls or in pieces.
  • Characters getting type 8 via other characters feeling like reviving them on what can be assumed to be a consistent basis, starting the standards based on headcanons ("Why wouldn't Y revive X? Y doesn't want X dead and has shown to revive it once w/o an issue").
    • I believe it was once tried based on God in TF2 friendly reviving Scout.
    • Really the character who revivies doesn't even need to do so regularly. Nothing states that it has to be regularly, only that the type 8 will stop once the factor helping stops.
So we need to set the rules clear. It doesn't matter how you wouldn't do X thing that's wrong, but what stops other users from doing the same based on what we have written.

I could make a proposal but it's actually pretty debatable which things to make strict and aim to disallow.
 
Last edited:
self-destruct button/weakness
Click to expand...

There's a thin line between "This object is continually keeping this character alive" and "This object when destroyed will kill the character, but the character can die through other means" which isn't always very clear. I guess some clarification text on this would be fine.

I don't really understand what you're saying with the more powerful being, or the places.

All abilities should be explained, ideally. I don't think type 8 immortality is particularly exceptional in this regard.

The regen example makes no sense, even by the current definition. If they have regen based on their body, why can the regen be overcome with excessive damage? If that's just where the limit is, you could apply that logic to someone with no abilities. They don't die as long as they're not killed. I think that sort of reasoning is just being reductive about the wording, and isn't much of an issue.
 
I think Agnaa makes sense, the latter is more so just a weakness rather than Immortality type 8 and it should be Immortality is granted by a certain power and/or like Immortality type 7, it should perhaps be used in combination with other Immortality types.
 
Agnaa said:
I don't really understand what you're saying with the more powerful being, or the places.
Click to expand...
I believe it's ill-defined how much dedication a character A needs to put in reviving a character B for the latter to have the former as type 8. What if it only happens once but it could hypothetically happen again? What if it happens twice? Where does the type 8 start?

For the places I definitely could have elaborated better, as I had in mind the DC thread I linked. In that thread, gods die, go to some magic place, revive, and come back. It's type 4 but arguably type 8 too, as if the magic place didn't exist they wouldn't revive themselves, which I pointed out could be but could also just a weakness to their type 4, w/o needing to be type 8.

That's the type of things that we can't just look at what we have writen and get a clear answer.
Agnaa said:
The regen example makes no sense, even by the current definition. If they have regen based on their body, why can the regen be overcome with excessive damage? If that's just where the limit is, you could apply that logic to someone with no abilities. They don't die as long as they're not killed. I think that sort of reasoning is just being reductive about the wording, and isn't much of an issue.
Click to expand...
Well, type 8 is kind of a NLF, a character could have it while only having a set level of regen anyone could overcome and kill it w/o the type 8 being less legit. Like one can have type 8 based on an item that bestows Mid-High regen to the user; you could destroy the item or nuke the user beyond what it can heal, both work.

If type 8 isn't a NLF and there's a certain amount of effectiveness on immortality it needs to give then that's also not shown by us.
 
Last edited:
I believe it's ill-defined how much dedication a character A needs to put in reviving a character B for the latter to have the former as type 8. What if it only happens once but it could hypothetically happen again? What if it happens twice? Where does the type 8 start?

We cannot set a number for this, as it varies depending on the length of the series, and the context of the revival. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis.

For the places I definitely could have elaborated better, as I had in mind the DC thread I linked. In that thread, gods die, go to some magic place, revive, and come back. It's type 4 but arguably type 8 too, as if the magic place didn't exist they wouldn't revive themselves, which I pointed out could be but could also just a weakness to their type 4, w/o needing to be type 8.

That'd just be type 4, the location isn't sustaining their existence. You could make similar arguments for type 6, that it's "reliant on other bodies existing to be transferred to", but that just seems reductive to me.

That's the type of things that we can't just look at what we have writen and get a clear answer.

I mean if some new text to be added can be presented I'll consider it, but we don't need to add 3 paragraphs of text for something that only 1 user has brought forward in half a decade, and has themselves realized should be dismissed as an argument.

Well, type 8 is kind of a NLF, a character could have it while only having a set level of regen anyone could overcome and kill it w/o the type 8 being less legit. Like one can have type 8 that gives it Mid-High regen.

I guess so, but with type 8 stuff like that's the exception, not the rule. We don't tend to have characters who are reliant on the conceptual archetype of humanity, who die once their organs are destroyed.

This should be a very good example of type 8.

That seems irrelevant to the thread, we already know what good examples of type 8 are.
 
Eficiente said:
For the places I definitely could have elaborated better, as I had in mind the DC thread I linked. In that thread, gods die, go to some magic place, revive, and come back. It's type 4 but arguably type 8 too, as if the magic place didn't exist they wouldn't revive themselves, which I pointed out could be but could also just a weakness to their type 4, w/o needing to be type 8.
Click to expand...
The source is a being. It's the source wall that's a place.
 
Type 4 doesn't have to be by their own power.

And like, if we're going by "They need this thing to be revived", many characters revive with an ability that can be power-nulled. It doesn't make much sense to say they have type 8 reliant on having the ability.

Also, please make one post at a time.
 
Agnaa said:
Type 4 doesn't have to be by their own power.

And like, if we're going by "They need this thing to be revived", many characters revive with an ability that can be power-nulled. It doesn't make much sense to say they have type 8 reliant on having the ability.

Also, please make one post at a time.
Click to expand...
Explain immorality type 8 to me ad give me examples of such characters
 
No problem. Just follow the instructions.
 
Well, to be the grandpa that rants about the history of stuff: When I originally suggested Type 8 it was meant to be for characters that can truly not be killed without changing something external of them.
That external thing could have been an object or other character (typically), but also other means of preventing them from resurrection like destroying their concept or making a law against them (both of those change the world in general i.e. change something external) or also attacking all future versions (which are not strictly speaking themself yet).
Due to my mediocre formulation things diluted over time and today, I think many characters with Type 8 wouldn't survive a soul crush or anything like that. Somewhat of a shame, but it is how it is.
 
Yeah, I don't think there's anything too wrong with the Type 8 Immortality it self, it's just certain characters may have it for weak reasons; it either needs to be proof that it also comes with other Immortality categories and/or conceptual hax and the like.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Yeah, I don't think there's anything too wrong with the Type 8 Immortality it self, it's just certain characters may have it for weak reasons; it either needs to be proof that it also comes with other Immortality categories and/or conceptual hax and the like.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree with that. the problem isnt with the type 8, the problem is with some characters having it with wrong reasons yeah
 
So do we need to write a better explanation text or a footnote?
 
Agnaa said:
We cannot set a number for this, as it varies depending on the length of the series, and the context of the revival. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...
Literal number no, a minumum of what's needed we could. After that it will still be case-by-case basis
Agnaa said:
That'd just be type 4, the location isn't sustaining their existence. You could make similar arguments for type 6, that it's "reliant on other bodies existing to be transferred to", but that just seems reductive to me.
Click to expand...
What you mean that the it isn't sustaining their existence? Why is sustaining their existence needed? Type 8 just says that if X stops existing the immortality will be over. For the characters reviving other characters they're not sustaining their existence, unless you mean the reviving part, a which point the location is doing that/leading that to happen.
Agnaa said:
I guess so, but with type 8 stuff like that's the exception, not the rule. We don't tend to have characters who are reliant on the conceptual archetype of humanity, who die once their organs are destroyed.
Click to expand...
I know, it was a bad example on purpose because it still fits what we have written.
Agnaa said:
Type 4 doesn't have to be by their own power.

And like, if we're going by "They need this thing to be revived", many characters revive with an ability that can be power-nulled. It doesn't make much sense to say they have type 8 reliant on having the ability.
Click to expand...
Then again, we can tell this makes sense but it's not really what we have written. If type 4 doesn't have to be by one's own power but one can have other revive it to have type 8 then where does the type 8 start? Why doesn't Rick Sanchez for example have type 8 based on the machines he has through the multiverse that will clone him when he dies?

I disagree with everyone saying that the text is fine as it is, it just says "cannot die as long as a certain being, object, or even concept exists", except
  • "Cannot die" just gives some benefits. Hence people can confuse other abilities for them or for them to be part of the reason as to why a character should have type 8.
  • "A certain being, object, or even concept" doesn't necessarily target 1 thing and makes it the exclusive reason for the type, but a short list of events. Like Pit getting revived by Palutena, Palutena needs to see Pit die, decide to revive him and do so, and Pit's refiant over that, not over the being that is Palutena, you could cut off their communication, empathic hax Palutena so she doesn't revive Pit or power null her ability to do so and that makes Pit's type 8 "not exist" anymore, w/o needing to kill Palutena.
  • "As long as exists" likewise doesn't mean as long "as it isn't destroyed/erased", just as long as it doesn't stop happening. It's synonymous, if something doesn't "happen" anymore it doesn't exist, you can remove all things people's refiant over w/o doing destruction over them but make them not happen, like the Pit example. It's as redundant as "this will help you unless it doesn't", but with more strong words. How would people not misuse the ability with that written?
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Yeah, I don't think there's anything too wrong with the Type 8 Immortality it self, it's just certain characters may have it for weak reasons; it either needs to be proof that it also comes with other Immortality categories and/or conceptual hax and the like.
Click to expand...
Bernkastelll said:
Yeah, I agree with that. the problem isnt with the type 8, the problem is with some characters having it with wrong reasons yeah
Click to expand...
Schnee_One said:
This is the fault of the files not the ability
Click to expand...
To clarify, I never meant to say that type 8 should be removed or anything, but that it should be better said. I will also say that it's not that characters have it for weak reasons, but that our description for the power allows that to happen, w/o them doing something wrong. And that's a problem.

If you guys grab a character with the least reasons to have the ability then I'll take a guess and say that it does qualify for what we have written, because why wouldn't?
 
Literal number no, a minumum of what's needed we could. After that it will still be case-by-case basis

How can we provide a minimum without giving a number, and without going to case-by-case basis?

What you mean that the it isn't sustaining their existence? Why is sustaining their existence needed? Type 8 just says that if X stops existing the immortality will be over. For the characters reviving other characters they're not sustaining their existence, unless you mean the reviving part, a which point the location is doing that/leading that to happen.

Then ig I'd suggest rewording Type 8 to mention "sustaining existence".
 
Agnaa said:
How can we provide a minimum without giving a number, and without going to case-by-case basis?
Click to expand...
We could write that it needs to reliably happen or be reasonably assumed that it will keep happening. But then again if "sustaining existence" is needed then just reviving shouldn't count, which brings me to..
Agnaa said:
Then ig I'd suggest rewording Type 8 to mention "sustaining existence".
Click to expand...
What does "sustaining existence" mean? If reviving others counts as type 8 then it can mean "sustaining other type of immortality [in this case type 4]", which doesn't mess with the life of the user if it doesn't die.

"Existence" there doesn't seem to refer to one's life but the benefit gained by the type 8, and those can be any other 1 type of immortality.

If existence does mean one's life as in, you destroy "the thing" and it kills the user, then that's not really how the power work, as many characters can have "the things" only exist from time to time or have it destroyed and they don't die, only lose the benefits gained from it. Like if certain feelings a character A has makes B exist and character A stops feeling that, that may kill character B in 1 verse while in another it may not kill character B, something else needing to go and kill it while the next day character A can feel the same things again and make character B exist again.

"Sustaining" really just means "it needs to happen", rather than a "constant feed of something it gives to the user" one may deduct from it.
 
What does "sustaining existence" mean?

Keeping them alive. Continually preventing their death.

If reviving others counts as type 8 then it can mean "sustaining other type of immortality [in this case type 4]", which doesn't mess with the life of the user if it doesn't die.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

If existence does mean one's life as in, you destroy "the thing" and it kills the user, then that's not really how the power work, as many characters can have "the things" only exist from time to time or have it destroyed and they don't die, only lose the benefits gained from it. Like if certain feelings a character A has makes B exist and character A stops feeling that, that may kill character B in 1 verse while in another it may not kill character B, something else needing to go and kill it while the next day character A can feel the same things again and make character B exist again.

I'm not saying that destroying the thing has to kill the user, just that the user would no longer be kept alive by the thing.

The distinction may seem minute, but a place that someone goes to when they're dead, which they use their own power to revive from, doesn't have that place keeping them alive. They're using their own powers to be alive, but can only feasibly use it if that place exists.
 
I meant if "sustaining existence" had something to do that would constantly affect the vitality of the user, which wasn't the case and so it doesn't matter.
Agnaa said:
The distinction may seem minute, but a place that someone goes to when they're dead, which they use their own power to revive from, doesn't have that place keeping them alive. They're using their own powers to be alive, but can only feasibly use it if that place exists.
Click to expand...
See, I was vague and simple in that example because the few scans given there did the same; we don't know if it's by their own power that they revive in a way that they can go and do anywhere else, it can very well be that they go there because the place has unique properties that helps them revive, or maybe the place itself revives them.

Using this other more clear example again:
Eficiente said:
Why doesn't Rick Sanchez for example have type 8 based on the machines he has through the multiverse that will clone him when he dies?
Click to expand...
Those cloning machines definitely "keep him alive" and "continually prevent his death", but then they also have the non-type 8 factors you said before of types 4 and 6. Which factors overlap the others and why?
 
See, I was vague and simple in that example because the few scans given there did the same; we don't know if it's by their own power that they revive in a way that they can go and do anywhere else, it can very well be that they go there because the place has unique properties that helps them revive, or maybe the place itself revives them.

Do it based on the context. If context is unclear, give a "possibly".

Those cloning machines definitely "keep him alive" and "continually prevent his death", but then they also have the non-type 8 factors you said before of types 4 and 6. Which factors overlap the others and why?

ig Rick could have type 8 but it doesn't really feel like it.
 
We did have some conclusions, just not a full proposal of what should type 8 say. It would need to:
  • Clarify the difference between "This object is continually keeping this character alive" and "This object when destroyed will kill the character, but the character can die through other means", and obviously point out how former gives type 8.
  • Obligate profiles to properly clarify what's the character reliant over and the process of how that works.
  • Obligate profiles to properly say what benefits their type 8 gives, as while yes we do in fact "don't tend to have characters who are reliant on the conceptual archetype of humanity, who die once their organs are destroyed", characters like it still exist, even characters who can die to more reasonable things to getting their soul crushed or other stuff, but yet people can be cheap and just write "reliant on [X]".
  • It was also pointed out that type 4 doesn't have to be by the user's own power, so if we write that in the description of type 4 then that will help people not jump on the conclusion that it's always type 8 if it's by outside means
The rest is still going. It's weird how Rick shouldn't have it but Pit does for pretty much lesser reasons. The standards and reasons for the power are up to interpretation and the more we can specify things up the better.
 
Okay. That seems to make sense to me.

What do the rest of you think?
 
How about this?:

"8: Reliant Immortality: The character gets benefited by 1 or more other types of Immortality as long as a certain being, object, place and/or concept or more may grant them those benefits, losing them otherwise. What exactly a user is reliant over, the benefits given from it, and how the process of the ability operates must be explained. Simply having some weakness that will kill a character when exploited doesn't qualify if it doesn't grant a form of Immortality, and also having other powers that do so but are unrelated to that weakness does not count as well. Simply having other form of Immortality not tied to one's powers doesn't necessarily mean this type should apply, redundancy is discouraged.
  • Examples: Lucemon - reliant on malice in the hearts of men for his immortality and power (Digimon), Voldemort - reliant on his Horcruxes to revive himself should he die (Harry Potter), Chara - reliant on the player's desire to increase their statistics to manifest after their death, reincarnating on a new host (Undertale)"
I don't think I notice this before but the examples we have right now kinda invite people to be lazy and just write "reliant on [X]" when they may definitely be more to it than that. I wrote the mechanics of the characters I knew or had it well explained in their profiles, for the others they didn't have the power explained too well. For example fairies in Touhou seem very immortal and all but their type 8 just seems to be a self-destruction thing that will kill them should the aspect of nature they represent ceases to be, I don't see evidence that it is because of that that they have their regen and resurrection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

StrymULTRA
Why aren't Player-supported characters granted Type 8 Immortality?
Replies
37
Views
2K
Ailamiona
Ailamiona
Enderlucario
Does this form of cloning count as a form of immortality?
Replies
1
Views
433
Lou_change
Lou_change
Shiraito983
immortality question
Replies
2
Views
572
Mr_Sugabz
Mr_Sugabz
Zeinx1
Fairy tail Immortality Upgrade
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
Zeinx1
Zeinx1
Comiphorous
Immortality type 8
Replies
8
Views
808
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
Back
Top