• 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 5 Acausality Rewording

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not only would they be "difficult to interact with", but next to impossible as the lack of "effects" prevents interaction from even happening.

I would consider "next to impossible" to be "difficult".
 
Also, trying to bypass it via causality manipulation wouldn't work, as the "effect" of it going through, literally does not even exist to pass through its system
 
Indeed, someone with Type 5 Acausality would not be affected by ordinary Causality Manipulation. That's covered by the "being difficult to interact with" part.
 
Agnaa said:
Indeed, someone with Type 5 Acausality would not be affected by ordinary Causality Manipulation. That's covered by the "being difficult to interact with" part.
Click to expand...
But, here's the problem: All of this, is still done inside the system.
It doesn't qualify for your suggestion of Type 5, as it isn't outside the system. Only that it is very hard to interact with explicitly due to how the system works.
Thus, it is still Type 4 despite the difficulty of interaction.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
But, here's the problem: All of this, is still done inside the system.
It doesn't qualify for your suggestion of Type 5, as it isn't outside the system. Only that it is very hard to interact with explicitly due to how the system works.
Click to expand...
That system of cause and effect is remarkably different from ordinary cause and effect.

Since the qualifier is "Be outside of an ordinary system of cause and effect (and be difficult to interact with because of it)", it doesn't matter if you're inside another weird one, you'd still get the ability.
 
Agnaa said:
As I said, I think the best workaround is just to define Acausality Type 5 as being beyond/outside at least one system of causality, and being difficult to interact with because of that.

Some anti-feats would still exist (directly interacting with that system of cause and effect if you're meant to be outside of it), but most could just be dismissed as happening through a higher system of cause and effect.
Click to expand...
You did not say an "ordinary system". Only a system in general; being difficult to interact with because of that.

You never actually said "they have to be difficult to interact with" to quality. What you did say, was that they are difficult to interact with because they are beyond/outside at least one system of causality.

Implying they are difficult to interact with because they are beyond it, not because it was a requirement. It is not a qualification due to how it is worded.
 
I consider being "beyond a normal system" as a subset of being "beyond a system".

I did not mean that being beyond that system makes them difficult to interact with as a natural conclusion. I meant that they have to be difficult to interact with to qualify, but they can't just be difficult to interact with for some irrelevant reason like nonexistent, they have to be difficult to interact with because of their abnormal causality. In short, I don't want "Different flow of time" + "Is a ghost" to give someone Type 5 Acausality.

I hope this clears up any accidental implications.
 
Maybe we could just say "to the point of being completely unaffected by attacks and abilities that operate under an ordinary form of causality"?
 
Perhaps, feel free to suggest changes to it.
 
"to the point where interacting with them is may prove impossible under conventional (better word than "ordinary") forms of causality"?
 
I wouldn't say "may prove" (the point of the rating is that they'd have to prove that). And I'm fine with using the word "conventional" instead of "ordinary".
 
I mean, you just said "they are difficult to interact with", not outright impossible to interact with (which could be labeled as nlf in some cases)
I mean it as: "It is so difficult to interact with them, it is borderline impossible. And IS impossible for those without the right methods to bypass it"

As there's always a few abilities that just puts a big middle finger to Acausality (Looking at you, Transduality)
 
Also saying "they are difficult to interact with", implies they still CAN be interacted with.
It is just extremely hard to do so
 
I think this confusion comes from shifting definitions too quickly.

I initially said "they are difficult to interact with", instead of "impossible", because I was making a general statement. Which would encompass both stuff bound by ordinary causality, and stuff that's not.

However, when you asked me to provide another definition, I said "completely unaffected by attacks and abilities that operate under an ordinary form of causality". This confers a level of impossibility, but only for attacks under that ordinary form of causality.
 
As I said, I'd be fine with saying they're impossible to interact with under conventional causality.
 
I have suspicions that some people here haven't fully read through the reworded definition that I have in my opening post.

Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality. Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.

Though the character is completely independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond it's feats.

Note: Being completely independent of time or laws; or similar forces, does not make you completely independent of causality without the relationship between these forces and causality being clarified, with it only being considered as evidence for a irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
I think the simplest thing to do would be to define type 5 as transcending "change" due to their acausal nature. Originally the logic of type 5 acausality was that since effect requires a cause, one can theoretically be invulnerable by transcending causality, this is more a matter of what power a verse gives you for being acausal rather than what level you transcend causality on.I definitely don't think type 5 should require transcending causality in all levels
 
Has DontTalk responded here, and if so what did he think that we should do?
 
Yes. To try to summarize.
  1. Post 1: Only one system of causality should be transcended, not all. The "virtually" in "virtually impossible" is unnecessary. They shouldn't just be independent of cause and effect, they should be unaffected by effects that act through a system of causality.
  2. Post 2: Don't treat this ability as NLF. Make the requirement of being unaffected clear.
  3. Post 3: Higher-tiered characters needing feats of bypassing Type 5 Acausality seems weird. Maybe this is fine for brute-force characters (although this brute force would usually leave the acausal character incapacitated), but not so much for plot/concept manip and other abstract powers. A reword is suggested.
  4. Post 4: The reword is refined.
The wording currently in the OP is close to the last reword DontTalk suggested. It's different in that it says "existing outside causality" instead of "existing outside all systems of causality", has an additional sentence warning people not to extrapolate the ability beyond its feats, and has a few minor grammar touch-ups.
 
Soooo... was a little absent lately. But got time to take a closer look at this now.
Was anything debated here beyond that draft at the end of the OP? If not, the draft in the OP looks fine.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Soooo... was a little absent lately. But got time to take a closer look at this now.
Was anything debated here beyond that draft at the end of the OP? If not, the draft in the OP looks fine.
Click to expand...
I wanted to know your thoughts about this:

The more confusing part is whether you needed to explicitly mention causality or you could still get type 5 if while there’s no direct mention of causality, there’s statements that could imply that in effect (ex. transcending the concept of time) and it demonstrably is difficult to interact with.
Click to expand...
 
There were some other things debated, but they were generally rejected or incorporated into the OP. Jinsye disagrees with treating time and causality as separate by defaul, Fixxed tried to suggest Acausality Type 5 be defined as "conceptually beyond causality".

@ShadowWarrior1999 That's already answered in the note in OP's draft.
 
Count me in the group agree that time and causality are tied, it is freaking real life science that time and conventional causality are linked, let alone fiction, time create what we called chronological order of events
 
Honestly, considering that acausality in and of itself is paradoxical in nature, it's just safe to assume that there will be at least some convolution of declaring acausality types and definitions.
 
Count me as neutral on whether we'd need explicit mentions of causality, or if just time works.
 
If people want time and causality to be one in the same. Then what placement do verses get that have time and causality wholly separate altogether? Their treated different, and even when "time" is destroyed causality and fate still exist and exert an influence on those in its cycle. This is an example to show that the verses treats them as being wholly separate systems.
 
Last edited:
Furudo_Erika said:
Not staff, but one of my biggest issues with Type 5 is that it often contradicts itself.

How exactly can a Type 5 even fight? As even the notion of even "landing an attack" or "causing damage" would not even apply to their own being.
Type 5 implies they are completely independent of cause and effect, so how exactly can a Type 5 interact with another being? As doing so, means they are still participating in a causality system.

It would go both ways; they cannot be interacted with, and they cannot interact with others, as doing so is an "effect".

Hell, things such as moving, breathing, and even speaking implies there is a system for them to do so in the first place. Type 5s "fighting" makes absolutely no sense, as it shows that they can effect each other, although Type 5 doesn't even participate in causality at all; which said "being affected" shows that they DO participate in it.
Click to expand...
would them not being bound by our system of cause and effect just be them using another system? That is, the system of irregular cause and effect. Sure it seems paradoxical in nature but acausality in and of itself is paradoxical. My line of logic is that type 5 means those who are not bound by conventional causality. They can still move and stuff but the way they move is alien to how we understand it. We cannot necessarily interact with them because of the irregularity. Thats why I do not agree with the absolute connotation of the wording of being independent of cause and effect. There's no such thing as true independence of it as there's always going to be you are either utilizing conventional causality or you are not. Being completely unrestrained from causality itself is more of nonexistent physiology which if you think about it, is just another set of causality. That is, every case has no effect and every effect has no cause. Traditionally speaking of course.
 
Everything12 said:
Yes, like how we treated Rakudai Kishi no Cavalry. Despite claims of being outside causality, because they showed no feats of being outside normal interaction and anti-feats of being interacted we only gave them Acausality Type 4.
Click to expand...
are you talking about excessively awoken desperado or just normal? I believe tendon is the only one who you could really give type 5 to anyways, as in, he is the easiest to argue with type 5.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
If people want time and causality to be one in the same. Then what placement do verses get that have time and causality wholly separate altogether? Their treated different, and even when "time" is destroyed causality and fate still exist and exert an influence on those in its cycle.
Click to expand...
1. Depend if the verse treat causality and time as such
2. to be fair, in fiction, almost all verse when time is destroy there is still some form of cause and effects lying around so the plot/story can move on
 
Vietthai96 said:
1. Depend if the verse treat causality and time as such
2. to be fair, in fiction, almost all verse when time is destroy there is still some form of cause and effects lying around so the plot/story can move on
Click to expand...
The verses bases causality around the Buddhist concept of Karma and Samsara. Where Karma is causality but time has no bearing(/control/influence/correlation/connection over causality/Karma/Samsara) on it (Causality) as its driven by law of dependent origination, and Impermanence (change)

and for point 2, Your suggest that can be considered Plot convenience or an outlier then? That's how I'm interpreting what your saying.
 
Ah, the buddhist is a tricky one. And for point 2, kinda like that, DBH is an example, Mechi suck all time into himself, past, present, future is gone, everything, but obviously plot still need to move one, story need to move on
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bobsican
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much for Too Little
2
Replies
71
Views
10K
Planck69
Planck69
Laviossiii
Question about Acausality and Beyond Dimensional Existance
Replies
2
Views
170
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
907
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
BeTheWay1rst
Question about Acausality (Type 4)
Replies
1
Views
211
Samael_010
Samael_010
CNBA3
Higher Causal System?
Replies
12
Views
2K
CNBA3
CNBA3
Back
Top