- 6,386
- 17,769
So, as we all know, the Tiering System is divided into two directions of power: Quantitative and qualitative. When we say the difference between X and Y is "quantitative," we mean exactly what's on the tin: It has to do with quantity. Some numerical determination keeping them apart. So the difference between 3 joules and 100 megatons is quantitative. So is the difference between 3 m³ and 10 km³. So is the difference between 2 universes and aleph-2 universes.
All quantitative differences are also continuous with each other, meaning you can add up a lot of small things to get a big thing. Put together a lot of 3 m³ cubes and you'll eventually cover a volume of 10 km³. Put together an aleph-2 amount of universes, and you'll have a High 1-B+ collection, even if the individual universes making up that collection are Low 2-C or somesuch. Same applies to higher-dimensional things; even if a physical square isn't a bunch of line segments "glued" together, it still has 1-dimensional sub-regions, and mathematically it is still a line segment multiplied by itself (Which is an uncountably infinite add-up).
"Qualitative" differences are another story. X is "qualitatively superior" to Y when the superiority it has over Y is not expressible by quantities of any kind, nor can be "divided down" into Y (The way you could, for example, divide up the aforementioned High 1-B+ collection into its Low 2-C constituents). Conversely, this means you can't "add up" to it, either. It's a total discrete jump from what's below it, there is no additive bridge between one and the other. So in effect they are superior because of the very nature of their existence. At minimum, these differences are 1-A.
As a result, we're a little stringent regarding anti-feats for those. Quoting the FAQ:
In sum: No dispersal of higher into lower. No addition of lower into higher. We do also provide loopholes though:
Earlier, a question between me and @Agnaa came up, though: Can a character be physically lower-dimensional (Or, really, dimensional at all) and yet have 1-A physicals? Agnaa thinks that should be impossible due to the criteria quoted above. That is, a character cannot have (lower-)dimensional nature and have 1-A physicals, even if their power is sourced from a 1-A thing. Specifically:
As he argues, the only way for a lower reality character to wield 1-A powers would be: a) The power just uses them as a point of reference, but isn't actually coming from them. b) The character acts as a sort of portal to a 1-A source, so that it receives damage in its stead whenever it's attacked. c) The power is sourced from a 1-A thing but doesn't have anything to do with their physicals (The most obvious and intersects with a).
As for me: Yeah, I don't see a problem with a character having ontologically greater power but not the physiology to match. In fact, I inserted this into the FAQ, which was supervised in the Tiering System presentation thread:
Which I thought was clear enough on the matter, but apparently was interpreted as talking about characters who are 1-A through powers unrelated to their physicals, or somesuch.
As for the points against the idea, there's a bit to say about them:
So, yeah. Would appreciate thoughts on the matter.
All quantitative differences are also continuous with each other, meaning you can add up a lot of small things to get a big thing. Put together a lot of 3 m³ cubes and you'll eventually cover a volume of 10 km³. Put together an aleph-2 amount of universes, and you'll have a High 1-B+ collection, even if the individual universes making up that collection are Low 2-C or somesuch. Same applies to higher-dimensional things; even if a physical square isn't a bunch of line segments "glued" together, it still has 1-dimensional sub-regions, and mathematically it is still a line segment multiplied by itself (Which is an uncountably infinite add-up).
"Qualitative" differences are another story. X is "qualitatively superior" to Y when the superiority it has over Y is not expressible by quantities of any kind, nor can be "divided down" into Y (The way you could, for example, divide up the aforementioned High 1-B+ collection into its Low 2-C constituents). Conversely, this means you can't "add up" to it, either. It's a total discrete jump from what's below it, there is no additive bridge between one and the other. So in effect they are superior because of the very nature of their existence. At minimum, these differences are 1-A.
As a result, we're a little stringent regarding anti-feats for those. Quoting the FAQ:
In sum: No dispersal of higher into lower. No addition of lower into higher. We do also provide loopholes though:
Earlier, a question between me and @Agnaa came up, though: Can a character be physically lower-dimensional (Or, really, dimensional at all) and yet have 1-A physicals? Agnaa thinks that should be impossible due to the criteria quoted above. That is, a character cannot have (lower-)dimensional nature and have 1-A physicals, even if their power is sourced from a 1-A thing. Specifically:
1. A qualitatively superior force doesn't occupy space, and nor can be encompassed by space (Or anything made up of smaller constituent parts). If a lower reality character has 1-A physicals, this force would be encompassed by space (By being located in their bodies), and therefore wouldn't be qualitatively superior after all.
2. If a lower reality character has 1-A physicals, then this entails that they can, e.g. punch with 1-A force, but the force of physical attacks like this is inherently quantitative and so it is impossible for a qualitatively greater power to be outputted through them.
3. If a lower reality character has 1-A physicals, then this entails that their atoms have the innate durability to withstand qualitatively superior attacks. But ontop of similar considerations as 2, if other lower reality beings can, for instance, move them (e.g. Wield them as a weapon), this would be a contradiction to their power being qualitatively greater as well.
2. If a lower reality character has 1-A physicals, then this entails that they can, e.g. punch with 1-A force, but the force of physical attacks like this is inherently quantitative and so it is impossible for a qualitatively greater power to be outputted through them.
3. If a lower reality character has 1-A physicals, then this entails that their atoms have the innate durability to withstand qualitatively superior attacks. But ontop of similar considerations as 2, if other lower reality beings can, for instance, move them (e.g. Wield them as a weapon), this would be a contradiction to their power being qualitatively greater as well.
As he argues, the only way for a lower reality character to wield 1-A powers would be: a) The power just uses them as a point of reference, but isn't actually coming from them. b) The character acts as a sort of portal to a 1-A source, so that it receives damage in its stead whenever it's attacked. c) The power is sourced from a 1-A thing but doesn't have anything to do with their physicals (The most obvious and intersects with a).
As for me: Yeah, I don't see a problem with a character having ontologically greater power but not the physiology to match. In fact, I inserted this into the FAQ, which was supervised in the Tiering System presentation thread:
Which I thought was clear enough on the matter, but apparently was interpreted as talking about characters who are 1-A through powers unrelated to their physicals, or somesuch.
As for the points against the idea, there's a bit to say about them:
Point 1 presupposes that the "power," to be truly present in that character and belong to them, has to be circumscribed by spatial location. "True presence" = "Spatial location" is an unjustified assumption. Everywhere, not just in fiction but even in popular philosophy, you see examples of non-spatial things being affirmed as really present in material things, without this presence meaning they're contained by space, for example if you believe in immaterial minds/souls (i.e. non-spatial but still belonging to the people whose minds/souls they are). I'm fine with us being mysterians as to how exactly that presence works.
It also seems to assume that the power by which the character is 1-A would be some sort of mana pool or energy that's inside the character's body, for which "location" makes sense as an attribute (Or, does it? Is something like ki contained spatially inside you?). Another baseless assoomption by my lights.
Point 2 also has similar issues: Why would we take the character's attacks to deal damage in the same way the attacks of a normal person would? Especially if we are granting that they're being empowered by a 1-A thing (Remember, the argument is that 1-A physicals are impossible even through help from a 1-A source). Same goes for something like durability; why would we assume that the "toughness" which their physical body takes on in this empowerment necessarily is like regular toughness?
Point 3 is unironically the most interesting of the bunch.My instinct is really just to say "You could apply this exact same logic to a character or weapon that is 3-D yet has, say, 1-C physicals. We wouldn't say a a sword with 1-C AP being wielded by a 10-B would be an anti-feat." I don't think the quantitative vs qualitative difference (Before someone tries to use that as a gotcha) really makes the two cases fundamentally different when the logic of "This infinite/more-than-infinite power being expressed through a physical body means it shouldn't be able to be meddled with by things that aren't on the same scope" is the same for both.
EDIT: I realized the above logic is most likely inadequate, since we think it's fine for non-1-A Tier 1 things to be affected by, say, hax from lower beings, while thinking it's not fine for 1-A things to be affected in that way. So you could trace out a link between that and the point Agnaa is making. Will think further on this, but for good faith's sake I'll leave this scratched out portion here.
Nevertheless, the same logic as #2 up there goes here: Why would we assume the strength they gain from this 1-A empowerment is anything like ordinary material toughness at all, so that this logic applies to it? If they're enduring forces described as qualitatively greater and contending with them, and doing so specifically due to an empowerment from similar forces, then clearly it isn't.
It also seems to assume that the power by which the character is 1-A would be some sort of mana pool or energy that's inside the character's body, for which "location" makes sense as an attribute (Or, does it? Is something like ki contained spatially inside you?). Another baseless assoomption by my lights.
Point 2 also has similar issues: Why would we take the character's attacks to deal damage in the same way the attacks of a normal person would? Especially if we are granting that they're being empowered by a 1-A thing (Remember, the argument is that 1-A physicals are impossible even through help from a 1-A source). Same goes for something like durability; why would we assume that the "toughness" which their physical body takes on in this empowerment necessarily is like regular toughness?
Point 3 is unironically the most interesting of the bunch.
EDIT: I realized the above logic is most likely inadequate, since we think it's fine for non-1-A Tier 1 things to be affected by, say, hax from lower beings, while thinking it's not fine for 1-A things to be affected in that way. So you could trace out a link between that and the point Agnaa is making. Will think further on this, but for good faith's sake I'll leave this scratched out portion here.
Nevertheless, the same logic as #2 up there goes here: Why would we assume the strength they gain from this 1-A empowerment is anything like ordinary material toughness at all, so that this logic applies to it? If they're enduring forces described as qualitatively greater and contending with them, and doing so specifically due to an empowerment from similar forces, then clearly it isn't.
So, yeah. Would appreciate thoughts on the matter.
Last edited:
roken 
