Immortality Type 2

[TheGreatJedi13]

Does it need for them to claim that they can indefinitely survive in said state which would normally kill a normal person?
or it can be granted to someone who can only remain alive for a while Eg. Cockroaches (Although they would die not from the injury but from starvation since they cannot eat)

and how would one actually prove they can indefinitely survive if that's a requirement when in most cases they get fixed up most of the time or heal back

 

[Zeldris98764]

Yes, "indefinitely survive" is a key part of Immortality Type 2. The idea is that the injury itself, which would be fatal to a normal person, does not cause the character to die, even if they don't heal from it. They aren't just "taking a long time to die" from that wound; the wound itself isn't progressing to fatality.

The cockroach example is tricky. If the decapitation leads to an inability to perform essential life functions (like eating, leading to starvation), and that secondary effect is what kills it, it leans away from Type 2. Type 2 implies the character can persist despite the injury, not that the injury sets a different, slower death clock ticking (e.g., starvation instead of immediate trauma). The focus is on the direct lethality of the wound being negated.

For proving "indefinite survival", I'd assume it would just have to fall under one of these:

• Direct statements or narrative descriptions, explicitly stating they can survive such wounds.
• Clear feats showing the character in a state that would kill a normal human (e.g., decapitated, heart removed) for a significant duration without dying from that injury. They might be incapacitated or weakened, but the injury itself isn't causing their life to fade.
• "Without needing to heal": If they are shown to survive the injury for a notable period before any healing occurs, or if it's stated they could survive without healing. If they always regenerate quickly, that's primarily Immortality Type 3 (via regeneration). Type 2 is specifically about surviving the initial grievous injury itself.

 

[SweetDao]

Does it need for them to claim that they can indefinitely survive in said state which would normally kill a normal person?

It's "indefinitely survive" something that should normally be able to kill any of their peers. For example, if a character is a human being and can still live/fight without a heart (or when his heart gets removed/stopped), that would work.

and how would one actually prove they can indefinitely survive if that's a requirement when in most cases they get fixed up most of the time or heal back

=> Guy having half his body destroyed, a bit like Fused Zamasu, but still managing to survive through sheer willpower/immortality type 2 application rather than with regeneration, for example.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

How would fused Zamasu be proven surviving indefinitely when the fact of the matter is that he has to fuse with the entirety of the timeline and become ethereal without a body, thanks to the dragon power.
Not to mention one of the examples in Type 2 immortality includes someone surviving with melted organs but the scans stated said person would only have a minute left to live thanks to the rotting

i know examples like someone still being able to function when half of his body was destroyed and finish his mission, only to return and be fixed up again.

 

[SweetDao]

How would fused Zamasu be proven surviving indefinitely when the fact of the matter is that he has to fuse with the entirety of the timeline and become ethereal without a body, thanks to the dragon power.

I used "like Zamasu" to illustrate someone having half his body destroyed and still "surviving". (Although I noticed he has Immortality type 2, somehow)

Not to mention one of the examples in Type 2 immortality includes someone surviving with melted organs but the scans stated said person would only have a minute left to live thanks to the rotting

I think it's fine. "Indefinitely" is surely an extrapolation of the page, I feel. Or we should make a lesser version of type 2 called "Resilience" or something for people who can survive but in a limited manner.

i know examples like someone still being able to function when half of his body was destroyed and finish his mission, only to return and be fixed up again.

I would say it's fine for type 2.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Yeah i believe so. Type 2 immo explanation also already mentioned the fact that there are degrees to this.
and I don't think Type 2 necessarily needs the Type 1 kind of immortality of being indefinite

 

[SweetDao]

Yeah i believe so. Type 2 immo explanation also already mentioned the fact that there are degrees to this.

OR you can put is as "Limited Type 2 (time he can survive without healing)" I guess.

and I don't think Type 2 necessarily needs the Type 1 kind of immortality of being indefinite

true

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

fair. i just had this thought after beheading a Dog tick and saw it still moved and walked like nothing happen (Powerscaling brain rot)

 

[SweetDao]

fair. i just had this thought after beheading a Dog tick and saw it still moved and walked like nothing happen (Powerscaling brain rot)

I've never seen such a brain rot moment in my entire life

 

[Catzlaflame]

I think it's fine. "Indefinitely" is surely an extrapolation of the page, I feel.

Extrapolated or not, it’s been argued before
(Although, in this specific case, a valid point. The viltrumities not being type 2 immortals is a hill I’m willing to die on)

Does it need for them to claim that they can indefinitely survive in said state which would normally kill a normal person?

The idea is that indefinitely surviving with the mortal injury should be the inherent assumption, w/o explicit statements that they actually will indefinitely survive.

Rarely will you see someone outright saying “hey I survived with my head busted open and i can remain this way indefinitely” even if that actually may be the case.

The logical assumption should be that they will survive indefinitely unless we have reason not to think so. For instance:

Not to mention one of the examples in Type 2 immortality includes someone surviving with melted organs but the scans stated said person would only have a minute left to live thanks to the rotting

Here it outright says the character will have 1 minute left, so this shouldn’t be type 2 at all frankly; I’ll work on getting that removed if it’s an example.

Beyond explicit contradictions where the character says “oh I’ll only survive for X amount of time” this is where it gets a bit dicey. Personally I also think that (in most cases) if it’s obvious that they will likely die soon, that it shouldn’t be Type 2.

For example, if a character is argued in favor of having type 2 for surviving a bullet straight to the heart, and they remain alive, but show cardinal signs of a near-death state i.e. loosing conscious, struggling to breathe, etc, that it should not be type 2. I say mostly because there are some characters that can actually maintain this forever (I believe Agnaa mentioned the vampires from some series last time we discussed this) but I do think that is on the rarer side.

 

[SweetDao]

Extrapolated or not, it’s been argued before
(Although, in this specific case, a valid point. The viltrumities not being type 2 immortals is a hill I’m willing to die on)

Honestly, we need a subtype of type 2 or another hax altogether