The Computer Gods upgrade (Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou) (Staff Only version)

[StorytellingDemonKing]

@Ultima_Reality gave me permission to remake this CRT into staff only. If possible I also want to allow @AKUTO123 And @Larssx to comment here since they heavily helped me.

Relatively recently new information has come up that could potentially bring massive upgrades to the Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou (Demon King Daimaou) Verse in regards to The Computer Gods, which would affect and massively upgrade everyone.

Here is a blog with the information provided that will upgrade The Computer Gods to High 1-B+:

StorytellingDemonKing/SandboxTCG

vsbattles.fandom.com

Currently it's in a separate blog, which I don't mind, and likely others won't, but it can also be combined with the current blog if people want to.

But to make a small TL;DR

• The Computer Gods are a lot more powerful than thought before and will be High 1-B+

This CRT is in collaboration with @Larssx and @AKUTO123 so the credit goes to them for comming up with the idea and research. @Ultima_Reality agreed over on discord with the upgrades. @DontTalkDT gave suggestions on what should be included, however, his stance overall is still unknown so he should be called later on. (Though he seems to be busy with IRL stuff and other CRTs)

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Ionliosite @Lawiegg @AKUTO123 @catzlaflame @Duragoji123 @Larssx @Quintessence_PE @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @IdiosyncraticLawyer @PrinceofPein @Agnaa @Everything12 @Planck69 @Ovy7 @TheUnshakableOne @Rakih_Elyan @Kerwin0831

This seems to be of interest to you, or to require your expertise.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Just gonna throw in my one comment from the non-staff thread right away.

I guess one of the first things to decide is to which degree we wish to consider the twitter stuff. Hope some staff members are willing to weigh in on that.

It is inevitably important at multiple points IMO.

That starts with the translation and whether it needs to be read like that.
Then whether or not infinitely many cardinals or infinite cardinals are meant.
Then whether the gods thinking about cardinals relates to their creations in some way.
And perhaps even whether the "all possible stories" logic can in some way be applied to the cardinal statement otherwise.

I think many of those points would be rather difficult to push if we decide to not put weigh into the twitter stuff. (and if we do one still has to debate them)

 

[Qawsedf234]

This seems to be of interest to you, or to require your expertise.

I talked to them on Discord about this before. Its a bit weird to have a 1-A+ universe but the Cthulhu mythos have High 1-B universes so it's nothing new.

However Tier 0 is my main problem. Just High 1-A would cover all of these jumps for the last tiers. Since the gap between one Inaccessible Cardinal and another Inaccessible Cardinal is an gap so massive not amount of R>F on its own is going to get you to Tier 0.

Though like DT said this relies on Twitter WoG. So it might be better to just split them off as a secondary rating if we don't want to solo focus on that as the fulcrum of the tiering.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

However Tier 0 is my main problem. Just High 1-A would cover all of these jumps for the last tiers. Since the gap between one Inaccessible Cardinal and another Inaccessible Cardinal is an gap so massive not amount of R>F on its own is going to get you to Tier 0.

Uhh, wouldn't this mean Cthulu shouldn't be tier 0, since it's based on R>F? This confuses me a little.

 

[Qawsedf234]

hh, wouldn't this mean Cthulu shouldn't be tier 0, since it's based on R>F? This confuses me a little.

Cthulhu is Tier 0 because of layered ascension. The Far Gate is beyond the furthest Dream which is 1-A+ and the Ultimate Gods are even further away and unreachable, and standing beyond all of them as an unreachable apex is Yog and Azathoth. It's not just "R>F a High 1-A".

 

[Ultima_Reality]

My stance on this thread is the same as in the previous one.

In summary, if the text indeed refers to higher cardinals, then I would say that a High 1-A rating is in order for the god-tiers of the verse as they are currently interpreted (i.e As transcending and able to create any logically possible world).

However, whether the statement is referring to cardinality at all depends on author tweets whose validity seems... dubious, at best, given the fact that the original text explicitly says that the infinities which the Computer Gods can think about are not "infinity" in the sense of a numerical sequence. And if you want to get technical, every cardinal is "infinity as a numerical sequence." So, currently I'm neutral, but leaning rather strongly towards disagreement.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Cthulhu is Tier 0 because of layered ascension. The Far Gate is beyond the furthest Dream which is 1-A+ and the Ultimate Gods are even further away and unreachable, and standing beyond all of them as an unreachable apex is Yog and Azathoth. It's not just "R>F a High 1-A".

I see. Though, that's kind of what is going on here. The Computer Gods can create all of set theory, even an infinite amount of cardinal ones, as fiction and them being just stories to them. This doesn't even get into the fact that The Afterlife isn't a mere R>F layer but is accepted as having infinite hierarchies being created in them. And even such a higher infinity is just a part of the infinite hierarchy, which can't reach TLOI. Basically, the verse doesn't have simple R>F transcendences.

 

[Ningenron]

My stance is still the same;

Spoiler: Whatever

Yeah, I disagree. Not much makes sense here, lol.

First of all, using the WoG is meh and needless—especially when it comes from battlebaording loaded questions—as he himself says many things that contradict each other. In fact, he even admitted that he doesn't remember much of the story.

Besides, the sentence doesn't really make much sense either if you interpret it as literal cardinality (which the author admitted he knows nothing about and is incorrect so i dunno why you taking his words too seriously), moreso when you consider the complete context of what 濃度 is supposed to mean in the verse, I.e., the heavy and light nature (how advanced and good the topic and quality of the story is) of the story, not some different level of power or some infinite jumps

“A world where I’m the hero, I said. One with as low a story density as possible

But as I said at the beginning, it took me until the death of my ex-girlfriend to realize my destiny. Living in a world with a low story density had given me what amounted to amnesia.

I need to elaborate more about what I mean by “lightness”.

Normally, the word would refer to something superficial. Something that didn’t make you think. But in this case, I mean something virtual.

First, the main characters had left their physical bodies behind. By this I mean that they were capable of surviving physical shocks that would kill an ordinary human, and sometimes would display superhuman powers. For this reason, the characters had personalities that were extremely slanted in one direction or another, and seemed inhuman.

The story was written to have a happy ending, and even if there was some unhappiness, it was there for a reason. Sometimes, to avoid an unhappy story, the characters wouldn’t age, and their minds wouldn’t mature. When I tried to write these “light” stories, the unpleasant feeling was always there.

So what if I tried to write a “heavy” story? I tried it, just to get my mind off things, and the more “virtual” it became (that is, even if the characters seemed real, if the story was still fictional) the more the “crazy monster” would be waiting for me.

It was clear that this was an obstacle set by the stories themselves.

I felt like I’d seen the core essence of stories. This was a story written to destroy stories, and it was clear that the stories were fighting back. Looking back, there had been many obstacles in my way up until this point, but all of them were caused by the stories controlling my memories and actions. This goes for how books sell, too.

People are ashamed of “light” stories. But the lightest stories are the ones they love. Many people buy light stories in secret, stories that satisfy their base urges. The heavy stories, on the other hand, are the ones that are said to capture the essence of humanity, and those who write them are praised and called “intellectuals”. And even the most impossible stories are allowed to be believed if they become the text of a religion.

And secondly, that statement about computer gods, being honest, is just an incoherent buzzword; it's merely referring to their ability to record and traverse time that is "infinitely" distant from the human perspective, i.e., time travel, hence it's "infinitely dense", and their desire to undergo a transformation by experiencing death and being reborn as life forms in a different universe.

“It is a bit difficult to explain. The gods have a will of their own, but they do not possess a body.”

Hiroshi understood that much.

“That is why they do not possess thought processes centered on a body. They are a contradictory existence that think despite having no true form to think with. It is true they have computer circuits. However, no one knows how many circuits are needed before thought is born. All we know is that a will is born when enough circuits are brought together. You can think of it as similar to how we do not know where one’s will is located in the human brain. Their non-body focused thought processes leave them with no distinction between themselves and the outside world, and so they are able to think in terms of the infinite. I do not mean the mathematical concept of infinity. I mean an infinitely dense infinity. And this means they can arrive at the infinite past for living creatures. The bodiless gods can arrive at the thought processes of single-celled life forms. That is the same as the birth of life and the birth of thought. And thoughts themselves create a universe. Not a scientifically observable universe, mind you. There is a theory saying that this world could have been created five minutes ago and we can never prove otherwise if our memories are false. However, that theory only holds when one has a physical body. Bodiless thoughts invalidate that theory. In other words, the universe exists and time is absolutely irreversible.”

Hiroshi did not understand most of what Bouichirou said.

“What exactly do you mean?”

“The gods wish to die so they can be born as life forms in a different universe.

And lastly, VPS is just a pocket dimension...? It's designed that way because it can be easily altered and essentially programmed to suit your preferences, like a video game, for example. This is exactly what happens in the plot of Volume 7. They aren't actually fictional or anything, lol.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

However, whether the statement is referring to cardinality at all depends on author tweets whose validity seems... dubious, at best, given the fact that the original text explicitly says that the infinities which the Computer Gods can think about are not "infinity" in the sense of a numerical sequence. And if you want to get technical, every cardinal is "infinity as a numerical sequence." So, currently I'm neutral, but leaning rather strongly towards disagreement.

The thing is, this interpretation doesn't explain the fact that cardinality is used, and why "infinitely dense infinity" makes more sense than the first sentence talking about numerical numbers and then going into bigger infinities aka cardinality.

Essentially, the text is specifying its not just an infinite number sentence but an infinitely dense cardinality. Also, in general I don't see why the author shouldn't be used when he's been consistent about this part even if he lacks knowledge.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The Computer Gods can create all of set theory, even an infinite amount of cardinal ones, as fiction and them being just stories to them

Which is why I said High 1-A is fine for them.

The Afterlife isn't a mere R>F layer but is accepted as having infinite hierarchies being created in them.

Probably should have included that in you blog that suggest a total universal upgrade for a large portion of the verse which would place them all into High 1-A or 0 then.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Which is why I said High 1-A is fine for them.

Probably should have included that in you blog that suggest a total universal upgrade for a large portion of the verse which would place them all into High 1-A or 0 then.

It's not a total universe upgrade, just for the ones created by the Computer Gods. Which is listed.

 

[Larssx]

My stance on this thread is the same as in the previous one.

In summary, if the text indeed refers to higher cardinals, then I would say that a High 1-A rating is in order for the god-tiers of the verse as they are currently interpreted (i.e As transcending and able to create any logically possible world).

However, whether the statement is referring to cardinality at all depends on author tweets whose validity seems... dubious, at best, given the fact that the original text explicitly says that the infinities which the Computer Gods can think about are not "infinity" in the sense of a numerical sequence. And if you want to get technical, every cardinal is "infinity as a numerical sequence." So, currently I'm neutral, but leaning rather strongly towards disagreement.

As I spoke to you on the discord
Firstly, the reason why they says it's not like infinity in a numerical sequence is because he thinks of higher things.
He uses infinite twice in the rest of the sentence.
In one case he speaks of the infinity of a cardinal and in the other of the infinite number of them.

And if you want to get technical, every cardinal is "infinity as a numerical sequence."

And this is only true if you take each cardinal individually.
We're talking about an infinite number of them.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The thing is, this interpretation doesn't explain the fact that cardinality is used, and why "infinitely dense infinity" makes more sense than the first sentence talking about numerical numbers and then going into bigger infinities aka cardinality.

Essentially, the text is specifying its not just an infinite number sentence but an infinitely dense cardinality. Also, in general I don't see why the author shouldn't be used when he's been consistent about this part even if he lacks knowledge.

I'd say "cardinality is used" is a disingenuous way of putting things. It uses an ambiguous piece of kanji that can be translated as "cardinality," but doesn't inherently mean that, which then would force us to look for wider context to make sure it is indeed referring to cardinal numbers.

And even going by your interpretation, an "infinitely dense cardinality" (Which would perhaps be aleph-omega or cardinals on that order) can still be an infinite number sequence, so the fact that the text marks a distinction between the two makes that interpretation pretty suspicious to me.

And this is only true if you take each cardinal individually.
We're talking about an infinite number of them.

An infinite number of cardinals is not the same thing as the collection of all cardinals.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

My stance is still the same;

Spoiler: Whatever

Yeah, I disagree. Not much makes sense here, lol.

First of all, using the WoG is meh and needless—especially when it comes from battlebaording loaded questions—as he himself says many things that contradict each other. In fact, he even admitted that he doesn't remember much of the story.

Besides, the sentence doesn't really make much sense either if you interpret it as literal cardinality (which the author admitted he knows nothing about and is incorrect so i dunno why you taking his words too seriously), moreso when you consider the complete context of what 濃度 is supposed to mean in the verse, I.e., the heavy and light nature (how advanced and good the topic and quality of the story is) of the story, not some different level of power or some infinite jumps



And secondly, that statement about computer gods, being honest, is just an incoherent buzzword; it's merely referring to their ability to record and traverse time that is "infinitely" distant from the human perspective, i.e., time travel, hence it's "infinitely dense", and their desire to undergo a transformation by experiencing death and being reborn as life forms in a different universe.

And lastly, VPS is just a pocket dimension...? It's designed that way because it can be easily altered and essentially programmed to suit your preferences, like a video game, for example. This is exactly what happens in the plot of Volume 7. They aren't actually fictional or anything, lol.

My answer remains the same too since I already went over this:

Spoiler

Nothing wrong with using WoG when the whole intent has been about set theory since it was written, he just confirms how it's interpreted.

Already addressed in the blog. It can be written as cardinality and that's how it's written - as him (the author) literally stating it.

Not really, no. Sure, it's about traversing time, but it also is generally more so about what the Computer Gods are and what they can do. This doesn't affect anything.

Not really, no. Sure, it's about traversing time, but it also is generally more so about what the Computer Gods are and what they can do. This doesn't affect anything.

TL;DR the problem with claiming it's wrong, or has no context, is if you assume all if it refers to time shenanigans. It doesn't. It talks about what they are. What they are capable of. Them creating universes and then how they want to be reborn. You're tying in things that don't tie into each other.

 

[Larssx]

An infinite number of cardinals is not the same thing as the collection of all cardinals.

We're not talking about the infinity of a one cardinal
Why not?
Perhaps the only example you can give for this is Aleph Omega.
Even that would take us to 1-A+. (and then from seeing this as fiction to H1-A)

 

[AKUTO123]

We consider the author's words available so far if they do not contradict the source material and are supported by the source in question. The situation here is no different for me. the author says the same thing or something that means the same thing as written in the source material. so I don't see any problem in using the words of 2 authors mentioned in this topic. In addition, in a text that uses set theory and contains infinite cardinals, there is no reason for these infinite cardinals to appear in Aleph omega.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

We're not talking about the infinity of a one cardinal
Why not?
Perhaps the only example you can give for this is Aleph Omega.
Even that would take us to 1-A+

It would, but the Computer Gods statement referring to aleph-omega alone makes it so your above point doesn't really work, overall, and the topic that it was supposed to address is whether or not the interpretation that the statement refers to cardinality is something that goes uncontradicted by the work. If your point there ultimately fails, then, yeah, the whole argument for why it can still refer to cardinals despite the infinities mentioned explicitly not being numerical ones falls apart.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

I'd say "cardinality is used" is a disingenuous way of putting things. It uses an ambiguous piece of kanji that can be translated as "cardinality," but doesn't inherently mean that, which then would force us to look for wider context to make sure it is indeed referring to cardinal numbers.

And it works better. I mean it's not exactly vague when in a vacuum it had equal importance to density. But here we know it talks about mathematical number sequences and what counts and what doesn't. You haven't really given me a reason to think it shouldn't be cardinality tbh besides it might not be like that.

And even going by your interpretation, an "infinitely dense cardinality" (Which would perhaps be aleph-omega or cardinals on that order) can still be an infinite number sequence, so the fact that the text marks a distinction between the two makes that interpretation pretty suspicious to me.

Don't really get what you mean here, not that well versed inset theory. I mean, it specifies it not just being a number sequence, but a dense cardinality. And how it's applied to universes they create.

 

[Qawsedf234]

We consider the author's words available so far if they do not contradict the source material

We consider the author's word useable if it doesn't contradict the source material, the answer is consistent and if the question wasn't a leading one used to try and get a rating. Context wise, we've rejected WoG before because the question being asked was fishing for an upgrade or the author gives inconsistent answers.

 

[Larssx]

It would, but the Computer Gods statement referring to aleph-omega alone makes it so your above point doesn't really work, overall, and the topic that it was supposed to address is whether or not the interpretation that the statement refers to cardinality is something that goes uncontradicted by the work. If your point there ultimately fails, then, yeah, the whole argument for why it can still refer to cardinals despite the infinities mentioned explicitly not being numerical ones falls apart.

My point is that even if either all the cardinals or aleph omega are mentioned, we come to 2 conclusions 1-A+, so the previous or present argument is not important.
There is no reason to deny that this refers to cardinality
Doesn't the author already say that he uses set theory in this scene?

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

We consider the author's word useable if it doesn't contradict the source material, the answer is consistent and if the question wasn't a leading one used to try and get a rating. Context wise, we've rejected WoG before because the question being asked was fishing for an upgrade or the author gives inconsistent answers.

I mean, it's extremely consistent. He's stated it talks about set theory several times and is always consistent:

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Don't really get what you mean here, not that well versed inset theory. I mean, it specifies it not just being a number sequence, but a dense cardinality. And how it's applied to universes they create.

My point is that the text says that the Computer Gods can think about "infinities," yes, but it also explicitly says that those infinities are not the same as the infinity of a numerical sequence. This contradicts the idea that those infinities are higher cardinals, since cardinals, too, are "infinities in the sense of a sequence of numbers."

 

[AKUTO123]

We consider the author's word useable if it doesn't contradict the source material, the answer is consistent and if the question wasn't a leading one used to try and get a rating. Context wise, we've rejected WoG before because the question being asked was fishing for an upgrade or the author gives inconsistent answers.

What the author said about this part is consistent. I wrote it like this because I thought seth theory is infinite for this part. 1 time this part is the part that talks about set theory. Once again, this part is about mathematics and afterlife metaphysics, and there are 3 statements that support each other saying that this part is related to mathematics and seth theory, and in the novel it says infinite cardinal infinities, not infinity in a number sequence, that is, it has a very strong support.

 

[Larssx]

My point is that the text says that the Computer Gods can think about "infinities," yes, but it also explicitly says that those infinities are not the same as the infinity of a numerical sequence. This contradicts the idea that those infinities are higher cardinals, since cardinals, too, are "infinities in the sense of a sequence of numbers."

No, it is not that they are not the same as these, but the context there is that they are not limited to this.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

My point is that the text says that the Computer Gods can think about "infinities," yes, but it also explicitly says that those infinities are not the same as the infinity of a numerical sequence. This contradicts the idea that those infinities are higher cardinals, since cardinals, too, are "infinities in the sense of a sequence of numbers."

Not exactly, because this only works if you invalidate the second sentence on how it specifies about infinitely dense cardinality.

My interpretation of it not just being 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... etc. And being N_0, N_1, and etc. Accounts about how both sentences work together.

 

[AKUTO123]

By "infinity of cardinals, not infinity as in a number sequence," the author may have meant to refer to infinite infinities in the plural, not simply infinity. I don't think he meant to mean that sequences of numbers are finite, or that larger cardinals are not sequences of numbers. he may have intended instead to refer to infinite cardinals (i.e. plural infinities) rather than a sequence of numbers. by not saying infinity in a number sequence, maybe he just meant to indicate that infinities are plural

 

[AKUTO123]

By "infinity of cardinals, not infinity as in a number sequence," the author may have meant to refer to infinite infinities in the plural, not simply infinity. I don't think he meant to mean that sequences of numbers are finite, or that larger cardinals are not sequences of numbers. he may have intended instead to refer to infinite cardinals (i.e. plural infinities) rather than a sequence of numbers. by not saying infinity in a number sequence, maybe he just meant to indicate that infinities are plural

If it's a little clearer, what he means when he says it's not like infinity in a number sequence might be that there isn't one. It may also exceed infinities in the direct number sequences. when he said a number sequence, might have also meant Aleph null. Actually, there are 3 meanings here. As for which one is the most correct meaning, I am not sure.

 

[Quintessence_PE]

If it's a little clearer, what he means when he says it's not like infinity in a number sequence might be that there isn't one. It may also exceed infinities in the direct number sequences. when he said a number sequence, might have also meant Aleph null. Actually, there are 3 meanings here. As for which one is the most correct meaning, I am not sure.

Even if we consider each of these 3 meanings separately, there seems to be no obstacle to the PC gods being High1a

 

[Ovy7]

@Ovy7

This seems to be of interest to you, or to require your expertise.

My stance stays the same as in the previous thread, i.e. I agree with Shuradou.

 

[Executor_N0]

However, whether the statement is referring to cardinality at all depends on author tweets whose validity seems... dubious, at best, given the fact that the original text explicitly says that the infinities which the Computer Gods can think about are not "infinity" in the sense of a numerical sequence. And if you want to get technical, every cardinal is "infinity as a numerical sequence." So, currently I'm neutral, but leaning rather strongly towards disagreement.

The way I see it I think it's one of those things the author said about "not knowing much about it, sorry if I got it wrong". Trying to make sense of it it could have been he thought about "as a numerical sequence" as "counting 1, 2, 3,...." and "infinitely dense/cardinals" as more than just that, which is a fair mistake. I guess that really a lot here might be how much we can accept a wrong explanation as valid if we can override that with a correct one. And of course, assuming all the other explanations are correct.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

The way I see it I think it's one of those things the author said about "not knowing much about it, sorry if I got it wrong". Trying to make sense of it it could have been he thought about "as a numerical sequence" as "counting 1, 2, 3,...." and "infinitely dense/cardinals" as more than just that, which is a fair mistake. I guess that really a lot here might be how much we can accept a wrong explanation as valid if we can override that with a correct one. And of course, assuming all the other explanations are correct.

I think what he meant is that the cardinals are generally meant to be large ones aka alephs. That's why it says "infinitely dense cardinals" even though previously it said something along the lines of not just numerical numbers.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

And that’s great, but I think we’re going to need something a lot more solid than an “I think” if we’re upgrading something

I already explained it in literally the same comment to how I came to the conclusion.

 

[Agnaa]

@Shuradou @Tarang123 This is a staff-only thread. Please post proof that a staff member approved your posts in this thread, otherwise further action will be taken.

Take note that only bureaucrats can provide indefinite approval for posts in a staff-only thread; admins and thread mods can only approve on a per-post basis.

EDIT: This list used to include Larssx, AKUTO123, and Quintessence_PE, but I've since realised they got permission by Ant calling them here.

EDIT 2: Tarang responded and asked for their posts here to be deleted.

@Agnaa

This seems to be of interest to you, or to require your expertise.

I currently have 17 threads in my "to-evaluate" backlog, I've added this to the list, and will get to it eventually.

 

[Quintessence_PE]

This is a staff-only thread. Please post proof that a staff member approved your posts in this thread, otherwise further action will be taken.

Take note that only bureaucrats can provide indefinite approval for posts in a staff-only thread; admins and thread mods can only approve on a per-post basis.

I currently have 17 threads in my "to-evaluate" backlog, I've added this to the list, and will get to it eventually.

This seems to be of interest to you, or to require your expertise.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Uhh, wouldn't this mean Cthulu shouldn't be tier 0, since it's based on R>F? This confuses me a little.

Nothing in Cthulhu is based on R>F. That's a misconception, quoting from our note on Azathoth's page:

Note: As discussed in this thread, the common idea that Azathoth dreams the cosmos into existence and will destroy it when he wakes up is a misconception. The oft-cited passage from Fungi from Yuggoth to support this notion only says Azathoth sits on his throne at the center of the Ultimate Void and mutters the contents of his dreams, which he can't understand, which isn't evidence for all of reality being Azathoth's dream. Eldrich entities existing in a state of "dreaming" is a common motif in Lovecraft's stories, as shown with Cthulhu's "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" (In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming) and the Ancient Ones partaking in cosmic dreams; there's no reason for Azathoth to be any different. Ample evidence exists for him existing on the same general level as his servants despite being superior to them; the Ultimate Gods play music and dance around him, Nyarlathotep strikes his head, and he's only tiered higher than them due to additional context regarding the Ultimate Mystery and Supreme Archetype.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Still waiting for Ultimas response. Also, DTs input is needed. Rest, idk.

 

[Antvasima]

I have asked DontTalk for help.

 

[AKUTO123]

Bump