Regarding type 2 (immortality not diabetes)

[Catzlaflame]

I am aware of the other thread on type 2, and this thread was actually a consequence of the same discussion, but addresses a different problem.

I’ll just quote myself:

I think the entire point of Type 2 immortality is that X organ/bodily construct (that would normally be required to sustain life) is completely irrelevant to survival. Now, I know that sounds extremely obvious, but the implications of that are actually pretty complex.

What I’m trying to say is that, If the organ/bodily system is irrelevant to survival, then, practically speaking, we shouldn’t see much difference between X character with or without injury to that bodily construct at least in terms of viability. Particularly, damage to that bodily construct shouldn’t put them in a near-death state.

Think about “Alive” as something of a spectrum where life and death are the 2 ends of the spectrum. In type 2 immortality, a life-sustaining bodily construct/organ shouldn’t have an effect on where the character lies on that spectrum, because again, it’s completely irrelevant to survival.

I get this is in contrast to:

2: Resilient Immortality: Characters with this degree of immortality can indefinitely survive injuries that would otherwise be lethal to a normal person, without needing to heal. This type of immortality can have different levels of effectiveness and can be bypassed, for example, by causing extremely severe wounds or the complete destruction of the body or specific parts of it, such as the head, etc.

But it’s this part of the definition that I think should be changed. Like think about it, If type 2 is not needing a life-sustaining system to survive, but if we have a clause that says oh actually it’s still type 2, even if the character eventually ends up dying AS LONG as it takes a higher grade of damage, then that just sounds like some kind of glorified stamina feat.

Type 2 Immortality is written up as surviving in the absence of a life-sustaining thing, not the ability to necessitate higher degrees of damage to eventually reach the same end-result I.e. death.

Just my 0.02$ so open to discussion on the topic.

 

[Catzlaflame]

@Agnaa @Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Antvasima @DontTalkDT @LephyrTheRevanchist @SamanPatou
Also, @Abstractions and @FinePoint (if y’all are still interested)

Any input would be appreciated!

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out. I am likely not well suited to personally making a reliable evaluation about this though.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Colonel_Krukov @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69

Your help would also be appreciated here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

What do you mean? Are you saying that type 2 immortality should be defined to not be possible to be bypassed at all?
Then... nobody would have it. Basically any character can be killed if you do it well enough. That's why we have it specified with a level from the Regeneration scale.

Or do you mean to say that a character receiving an injury to some organ and being put in a near-death state as a result is an anti-feat to them having immortality type 2 regarding destruction of that organ specifically? I can in principle see that, but that is hard to prove. While they shouldn't be near-death, it makes sense that they can still be weakened from an injury. Like, a human can get a wound and the wound can weaken them due to blood loss. The blood loss would be lethal (so no ranking against that) but the wound might not be.
Given, being immune to bloodloss might be a requirement for this, seeing how any little injury that doesn't heal is going to make you bleed out eventually.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Are you saying that type 2 immortality should be defined to not be possible to be bypassed at all?

Not at all, It can still be bypassed, just not by a higher degree of damage to the life-sustaining thing. I’m saying the amount of damage taken by that life-sustaining thing should be a non-factor since, again, there shouldn’t be a correlation between viability and the life-sustaining thing. Doesn’t mean the character is still unkillable.

Or do you mean to say that a character receiving an injury to some organ and being put in a near-death state as a result is an anti-feat to them having immortality type 2 regarding destruction of that organ specifically?

Yes, exactly

While they shouldn't be near-death, it makes sense that they can still be weakened from an injury. Like, a human can get a wound and the wound can weaken them due to blood loss. The blood loss would be lethal (so no ranking against that) but the wound might not be.

If a random character takes a spear straight to the heart, and instead of dying, they dramatically stagger around, and are very clearly on the brink of death, I sincerely doubt an author is accounting for something as specific as “yes they took a spear to the heart, but I want this portrayal to be interpreted, as no they are not actually dying from that, but its the blood loss thats killing them.”

I think the big thing here is that we’re looking at it from 2 different angles. You seem to be looking at it from a perspective where the Type 2 is explicitly stated (as in the series straight up confirming that, yes, this thing is in fact not needed for this character’s survival). If we look at it from this angle, I guess it makes sense that the author would account for ulterior explanations like what you mentioned. In which case, that would by all means still be Type 2 imo.

That’s usually not what happens tho. More often than not, it’s CRT-makers who witness the character survive something they interpret as normally unsurvivable, and if, in that situation, the character is clearly on the brink of death, then I think its way more likely the author just meant it to be some kinda valiant, hail-mary, super big balls, peak stamina + super willpower -esque feat. In which case, I don’t think that’s type 2 at all. And i do believe that’s a very common trope in fiction.

 

[Duedate8898]

I assume what the OP is trying to say is that if a wound is fatal for a character, but a character is managing to live a long while after being given the wound then this wouldn't qualify as Type 2 immortality as they ultimately still succumb to the wound or would've succumbed to it without the interjection of an outside factor.

For example, Whitebeard in One Piece. Gets part of his brains erased by an attack from Akiainu and then later on dies as collective result of his wounds, but we don't treat him as having Type 2 immortality for pushing past it to do more.

 

[FinePoint]

@FinePoint (if y’all are still interested)

Any input would be appreciated!

On principle, I'm actually fine with making Type 2 Immortality even more strict, but my fundamental concern is having a replacement.

As I said in the other thread: "It feels cognitively dissonant that if someone gets decapitated and is like 'don't worry, I can survive as a severed head for at least fifty years' that we'd attribute that to what- a stamina feat?"

And I feel the same way about people who tank damage which should obviously be lethal, to any degree, and I don't think stamina makes sense as a catch-all for that kind of thing. We're not talking about continuing to fight despite these injuries, really, we're talking about simply not dying from them, without medical attention.

So if that's not Type 2 Immortality, then I honestly think we might need a new ability for it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Following, lurking, interested, don't have feedback yet. Will see where conversation goes.

 

[Firestorm808]

How would we consider an example of "Someone ripped out my heart, and I continue to live my normal life after that without issue. However, if you blow my brains out, that might kill me."

 

[Catzlaflame]

if a wound is fatal for a character, but a character is managing to live a long while after being given the wound then this wouldn't qualify as Type 2 immortality as they ultimately still succumb to the wound or would've succumbed to it without the interjection of an outside factor.

Kinda but not exactly. Particularly not that bolded part. I’m saying they shouldn’t even be more prone to succumbing to their injuries in the first place because that specific life-sustaining organ/thing, is entirely irrelevant to their survival. Even if they do remain alive without interjection from an outside factor, they shouldn’t be any closer to death.

This discussion sprang up from a character who had some kinda fatal injury (iirc entire head was totally bashed in and all skin peeled off) and they remained alive for like months or years (I forgor), in a near-death state, but eventually healing over time. I don’t think this is type 2.

How would we consider an example of "Someone ripped out my heart, and I continue to live my normal life after that without issue. However, if you blow my brains out, that might kill me."

That’d still be type 2, yes. No qualms there.

 

[FinePoint]

Snip

I started workshopping a potential new ability called Resilient Physiology, which may bridge the gap between the high standards of Immortality Type 2 and the probably nonsensical attribution of merely having high 'stamina'.

Would love your thoughts on it.

I've been workshopping a potential new ability called Resilient Physiology which may bridge the gap between the high standards of Immortality Type 2 and the nonsensical attribution of merely having high stamina. Would love your input on it:

Characters with Resilient Physiology possess bodies which can survive normally fatal damage for far longer than a typical human, without outside intervention.

For example, if a character survives for days without skin, whereas a typical person would die within just a few hours.

This is distinct from but may be connected to high stamina, which can allow characters to temporarily ignore their injuries to continue fighting, or Immortality (Type 2) which requires for their survival to be indefinite, even without healing.

Note that to qualify for this ability, their injuries must actually persist for far longer than is typically survivable, meaning not immediately regenerated.

 

[Agnaa]

Eh, I'm not too sure about that, since some characters can remain in near-death states indefinitely.

In Monogatari, vampires can be reduced to ash scattered across the planet and still continue existing for hundreds of years. They're still weakened; if they gather their ashes, they'll need to regain sustenance to return to a humanoid form, and they'd be weakened until they get properly fed. But they can seemingly persist this way forever, until some hax is used to truly kill them.

And also, I'm not sure if we should consider that such characters would also remain "alive" if their opponent was able to atomise them, or worse.

 

[Catzlaflame]

In the midst of studying for finals so apologies for sporadic replies.

weakened

I think we're using "weakness" in 2 diferent contexts.

If we take a character, dice them up into 50 pieces, and they're still alive, just not able to idk swing a sword, walk, jump, etc all as a consequence of literally being in a bunch of pieces, then thats fine. Still type 2 in my book. Yea, they're "weakened" but not the kinda weakened I'm talking about. More specifically, I'm referring to weakness in the context of approaching death. Admittedly, it's rrly hard to explain what "weakeness in the context of approaching death" is... solely because approaching death won't always look the same for X character and Y character, but I think it'd be easier to explain working our way backwards:

w/ the vampires your describing, when they do gather all of their dust particles back....... what changes? What are they able to do, now compared to when they didn't recieve the fatal injury? If the answer is stuff like what I mentioned in the first sentence, then thats still type 2 i.e., "weakness" from the literal, manual loss of the body parts.

However, in a character with "weakness approaching death" its different. Again, its really hard to come up w a universal explanation, but I think its glaringly obvious in the context of a series. Usually, authors will illustrate this kinda weakness as loss of conciousness, clutching the part of their body associated with that life-sustaining organ, staggering, sharp/deep respirations, they start being dizziness, etc etc. In those cases, I think its clear that the damage to the life-sustaining thing does in fact impact their vitality albeit not to the extent of killing them.. which, in turn, implies that the life-sustaining thing isn't irrelvant to their survival.

I started workshopping a potential new ability called Resilient Physiology, which may bridge the gap between the high standards of Immortality Type 2 and the probably nonsensical attribution of merely having high 'stamina'.

Would love your thoughts on it.

I've been workshopping a potential new ability called Resilient Physiology which may bridge the gap between the high standards of Immortality Type 2 and the nonsensical attribution of merely having high stamina. Would love your input on it:

I would support this. Somethings to consider:
Lasting longer than normal could be one application, yes, but another way of looking at it would be characters nessecitating a higher degree of damage to eventually kill them. Like for example, if theres a character who tanks a spear straight to the heart, and instead of dying they say "Lol, one more of those and I'm a goner." That would also fall under this blanket me thinks. Also a sentence or two to ensure the exclusion of what I mention here:

I think its way more likely the author just meant it to be some kinda valiant, hail-mary, super big balls, peak stamina + super willpower -esque feat. In which case, I don’t think that’s type 2 at all.

wouldn't hurt cus people may interpret it as such.

 

[Agnaa]

In the midst of studying for finals so apologies for sporadic replies.

I think we're using "weakness" in 2 diferent contexts.

If we take a character, dice them up into 50 pieces, and they're still alive, just not able to idk swing a sword, walk, jump, etc all as a consequence of literally being in a bunch of pieces, then thats fine. Still type 2 in my book. Yea, they're "weakened" but not the kinda weakened I'm talking about. More specifically, I'm referring to weakness in the context of approaching death. Admittedly, it's rrly hard to explain what "weakeness in the context of approaching death" is... solely because approaching death won't always look the same for X character and Y character, but I think it'd be easier to explain working our way backwards:

w/ the vampires your describing, when they do gather all of their dust particles back....... what changes? What are they able to do, now compared to when they didn't recieve the fatal injury? If the answer is stuff like what I mentioned in the first sentence, then thats still type 2 i.e., "weakness" from the literal, manual loss of the body parts.

However, in a character with "weakness approaching death" its different. Again, its really hard to come up w a universal explanation, but I think its glaringly obvious in the context of a series. Usually, authors will illustrate this kinda weakness as loss of conciousness, clutching the part of their body associated with that life-sustaining organ, staggering, sharp/deep respirations, they start being dizziness, etc etc. In those cases, I think its clear that the damage to the life-sustaining thing does in fact impact their vitality albeit not to the extent of killing them.. which, in turn, implies that the life-sustaining thing isn't irrelvant to their survival.

While as ashes, they're mostly unconscious. They can still perceive things, be drawn to places, and have their memories influence their actions to some extent, but this is largely instinctive.

While as ashes, they're weaker. They can't create as much matter as they usually can, objects they create/possess are weaker. As they regain strength by feeding, they become able to manifest larger and stronger objects.

While recovering energy towards their original physical form, their ability to transform and regenerate is weakened.

---

Going away from my earlier example, I'd also want to ponder how this idea gets some weirdness due to the distinctions we have between immortality types. Characters with Immortality Type 2 presumably don't have to live forever, without clear statements it can, in some cases, be vague whether a later death is due to age or injury. Plus, characters with Immortality Type 2 presumably don't need Self-Sustenance; certain injuries, while not directly killing them, would render them unable to eat/drink/breathe, leading to death that way.