Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,242
- 10,570
- Thread starter
- #121
Do you have a source for this?
-
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.
Minor God of War Removal
- Thread starter Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
- Start date
-
- Tags
- god of war
- Status
- 7,156
- 12,885
Ironically he's referencing Greek myths, not GoW, despite all the complaints above. Nephele is only mentioned in that single sentence and makes no other appearances that I can tell, so her origin or the fact that she looked like Hera is all coming from Greek myths
In the myths, she is a cloud nymph that Zeus makes to look like Hera, to see if Ixion is trying to sleep with his wife. He does, and him and Nephele birth centaurs. Nephele is the goddess of hospitality and generosity. It's nothing special as far as greek myths are concerned. A demigod and a goddess/nymph having offspring is very common.
What's problematic here is the suggesting that the Fates are the reason they were capable of having off-spring. No evidence has been provided to suggest this. The phrase "improbable lovers" is being fashioned to mean "lovers who could not otherwise have offspring without our magical interference" which is basically creative fiction, nothing in the scans actually says any of that.
- 15,345
- 11,145
...the things I quoted, what else?. Greek myth thing and the biological manipulation not being needed. As my experience, I've noticed characters can outright effect people's biology with fate hax. It's it the case here, don't know for certain but it's possible. And to me it seems that it is referring to twins at a point to me. Not much else to say other than I interpret it differently than you.
Anyway, I'm pretty much done here. I do think the current justification isn't valid as you explained, and I don't have much to say regarding human/cloud procreation at the moment but i think the twin thing is valid.
Lou_change
He/Him- 9,747
- 5,130
"As she considered the matter, her finger stroked the thread of destiny attached to the young king that had caught her eye before and produced a violent fate for the mortal affixed to the far end."
I am pretty sure far end doesn't necessarily mean the literal end it means on the side near the end away like how on a scale of 1 to 10, 9 would be on the far end of the scale.
"Never slack, always under delightful tension, the poor wight afforded her the chance to think even as he suffered."
He is going to suffer as a result of this fate so presumably he is alive to suffer. Then again there is an afterlife I guess.
"He would reach old age, yes, with all his wit and intelligence, but her single design dictated that he would do so without legs."
She decided the length of the string before this point and unless some explicit statement of changing the life span she decided on or the fact something violent would happen to him was cut out from the quotes provided, it seems like her plan all along was to make him lose his legs in war.
I am pretty sure far end doesn't necessarily mean the literal end it means on the side near the end away like how on a scale of 1 to 10, 9 would be on the far end of the scale.
"Never slack, always under delightful tension, the poor wight afforded her the chance to think even as he suffered."
He is going to suffer as a result of this fate so presumably he is alive to suffer. Then again there is an afterlife I guess.
"He would reach old age, yes, with all his wit and intelligence, but her single design dictated that he would do so without legs."
She decided the length of the string before this point and unless some explicit statement of changing the life span she decided on or the fact something violent would happen to him was cut out from the quotes provided, it seems like her plan all along was to make him lose his legs in war.
Lahkesis laughed. "Must we always deliver such fearsome fates to those mortals and gods? Why can't we have fun breeding improbable lovers and then playing with their offspring? Remember the amusement Ixion and his cloud lover Nephele brought us? Zeus binding him to an eternally spinning fiery sky wheel provides me
with enjoyment yet."
If we aren't giving any further context we should be able to at least compare the events to the myth about them given there's no direct contradictions Nephele was some clouds made to look like Hera by Zeus that Ixion then forced himself on the child of which later did it with horses leading to centaurs. The scan doesn't even mention the offspring that came from this one. Two other things it says breeding improbable lovers not impossible lovers and we know gods and mortals can breed it's not unreasonable for other types of pairing to be unlikely but possible.
Are you sure? It seems she was a cloud turned nymph
- 15,345
- 11,145
How do you know he's referring to myth?
- 17,757
- 17,201
Greek myth in general? Apollodorus if we wanna be super specific.
Honestly (speaking generally), which is it? We use Greek myth and she's just a god made cloud or we don't and just stick to the novel? In the latter's case, she's just referenced as Ixion's "cloud lover" in reference to the "improbable couplings" so it's not really just a matter of her being divine. The novel itself differentiates the couplings from standard mortal/god Union.
- 17,757
- 17,201
Nah, I was. I was making a point about using myth or not.
- 7,156
- 12,885
- 15,345
- 11,145
You commented before he said that....
Pepsimanslover_69
He/Him- 111
- 106
Deagnox has precog confirmed
- 7,156
- 12,885
Nephele isn't mentioned anywhere else besides that single sentence, so him saying she looked like Hera has to come from myth, not the book or games.
Media literacy is literally a superpower.
This is pretty much the best approach. We still don't have any evidence that the Fates can dictate which pairings can or cannot produce off-spring and the phrase "improbable lovers" does not imply anything about that, so this is moot.
- 15,345
- 11,145
I don't know all the information from the games. So to a normal person, he potential could have been referring to the games.
- 7,156
- 12,885
Right, but you're asking me how I knew that. That's how.
Robespierre_Isidore
They/Them- 68
- 158
I fate manipulated some dogs into a kennel and got a litter of puppies... ergo I have biomanip clearly.
Fate manipulation can cover so many different abilities with what one can do with it, it is positively an insane power. For characters like The Sisters unless they are explicitly stated to be messing with the biology of something I feel it is keen to assume they used their already established Fate manipulation to set up the situation for something like that to occur rather than some new form of bio manip.
Exactly so.
- 7,156
- 12,885
You're exactly right. It's strange to imagine up new powers for the Greek Fates for accomplishing things that the powers they are famous for can accomplish by themselves.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,242
- 10,570
- Thread starter
- #137
Okay, so all your complaints about "we can't just assume things work like Greek myth" would also apply to this statement, correct? If not, then Deagon's prior argument stands. Pick a side. You cannot insinuate that something is only okay when you do it, and not when anyone else does it, so please tell me if you believe Greek myths are a valid source or not.
- 15,345
- 11,145
It can be both. If proven...
- 17,757
- 17,201
.....I feel like you're misunderstanding something severely here. I'm correcting the assumption that because it's Greek myth then it's more biologically probable. I'm happy to stick fully to the novel, where the word "nymph" is never said, if that's all the same to you.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,242
- 10,570
- Thread starter
- #140
Sure. Then there's no evidence of elemental intangibility lol (the term "cloud lover" is not evidence of a character literally being a cloud)
What does this even mean? If a source is valid, then it's valid for all parties to use. You can't just say "I get to use scans from this novel but nobody else can", that's just absurd.
- 7,156
- 12,885
That doesn't really make sense. The only way it could be "proven" is if the games directly say it, which is just Option 1) Use source material only. The question is whether non-game information about the myths can be used to fill in the gaps where the source material doesn't specify.
"Biologically probable" doesn't mean anything. You're attempting to draw a connection to the phrase "improbable lovers" but there's no basis for believing that phrase refers to whether two beings can have offspring or not. Probability is not how one would speak about whether two species can breed.
In any case, if we are limiting this to just what the source material actually says, then we are left with absolutely nothing that says the Fates can determine who can and can't biologically produce offspring, so this entire discussion becomes moot.
- 15,345
- 11,145
I ment that you can ignore stuff when it's shown not to be one for one and have no evidence of it being the same, but you can take if you have evidence of being the same... Thus you can both use and not use a comparison of the myth and God of War in a scenario. What are y'all talking about.
Robespierre_Isidore
They/Them- 68
- 158
The fact it did not read like what you just said at all. I was confused too and was about to ask for some clarity, thank you for providing that.
- 15,345
- 11,145
Then I apologize for not being clear, thought I was tho. My bad.
- 32,774
- 37,945
@LordGriffin1000 So, what vote have you decided to cast? Do you agree with the OP or do you disagree with the OP?
- 11,259
- 17,505
Also, I know that I was keeping track of the vote, but for personal reasons, I'll be unfollowing the thread. I apologize for any inconvenience.
- 15,345
- 11,145
I don't have enough information on God of War to provide any proper counterpoints regarding the arguments, though I think the twin thing has some merit, I'm inclined to agree with the removal for now. I'm pretty tired to so I'd say that's my final stance. Probably will look into it more on my spare time but I've got other things I need to take care of.
- 9,043
- 9,279
About the cloud thing, that's in reference to an actual myth story. It's not a literal cloud, but a nymph.
Edit: Lol, didn't saw it was already brought up.
- 32,774
- 37,945
Don't worry about it LOL.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,528
- 18,859
I think this puts it most aptly. I would agree with the removal, having read through the scans and the positions of the two interpretations- I feel all of their supposed feats of Bio Manip are covered by Fate Manip entirely.
- 29,971
- 31,091
I disagree via Planck and KLOL's reasons.
Lou_change
He/Him- 9,747
- 5,130
Could you two specify which reasons there are about four different arguments being used and if you don't believe all of them it would be nice to know which ones are still in discussion.
- 24,130
- 24,811
I disagree via KLOL and Planck's reasons
- 4,467
- 5,647
I have been asked to provide input here.
Importantly, I feel I should acknowledge this issue, since it was a clear point of confusion earlier in the discussion.
'Burden of proof' is not a difficult thing to discern - when you have a situation where multiple conclusions are possible, and you say "this conclusion is the correct one", you have the burden of proof to say why it is the correct one and the others are not. Most of the arguments for biological manipulation have been variations of taking quotes that ambiguously, potentially could be biological manipulation, or could have alternate, non-biological manipulation explanations, and assuming the former is the truth of the matter. The King could have lost his legs in many different ways - and in fact, the established context quite clearly implies he lost them in a war - and all we know for sure is that they changed his fate from him dying to him losing his legs in some manner. The birthing of 'improbable offspring' could also occur in many different ways, and the most that we know is that they can someway, somehow change fate to make such events happen. Taking these ambiguous circumstances, where it could have happened in some way that fits our standard or could have happened some way that wouldn't, and asserting that the mere possibility of the former is reason enough to apply it is never how we've built our profiles.
The only scan I think is really worthy of consideration in this regard is the 'twins' scan. I don't really agree with Deagon's reading that the 'twins' are the threads themselves and not the people represented by those threads. Considering that the threads are explicitly physical representations of individual people that can be manipulated to change the individual's fate, and that splitting one thread in half was called 'birth[ing] twins', I think it's quite clear the intended reading of the passage was 'this person who would have previously been a single person has become twins'. Independently of my issues with the refutations, though, this falls into a similar issue with the previous issues - what's the mechanic behind 'birth[ing] twins' here? Did they literally, directly change the mother's womb so that she would give birth to two people instead of one? Or did they, for example, change the events surrounding the birth so that she would give birth to twins? We don't know. The scan doesn't say how it works. I recognise the distinct possibility here, but I wouldn't sign off on this as a feat of biological manipulation off of the scan in isolation.
So, I have to agree with the removal of the ability. I would not be surprised if the Sisters of Fate have more explicit feats of biological manipulation, but I find all of these suggestions tenuous.
Importantly, I feel I should acknowledge this issue, since it was a clear point of confusion earlier in the discussion.
'Burden of proof' is not a difficult thing to discern - when you have a situation where multiple conclusions are possible, and you say "this conclusion is the correct one", you have the burden of proof to say why it is the correct one and the others are not. Most of the arguments for biological manipulation have been variations of taking quotes that ambiguously, potentially could be biological manipulation, or could have alternate, non-biological manipulation explanations, and assuming the former is the truth of the matter. The King could have lost his legs in many different ways - and in fact, the established context quite clearly implies he lost them in a war - and all we know for sure is that they changed his fate from him dying to him losing his legs in some manner. The birthing of 'improbable offspring' could also occur in many different ways, and the most that we know is that they can someway, somehow change fate to make such events happen. Taking these ambiguous circumstances, where it could have happened in some way that fits our standard or could have happened some way that wouldn't, and asserting that the mere possibility of the former is reason enough to apply it is never how we've built our profiles.
The only scan I think is really worthy of consideration in this regard is the 'twins' scan. I don't really agree with Deagon's reading that the 'twins' are the threads themselves and not the people represented by those threads. Considering that the threads are explicitly physical representations of individual people that can be manipulated to change the individual's fate, and that splitting one thread in half was called 'birth[ing] twins', I think it's quite clear the intended reading of the passage was 'this person who would have previously been a single person has become twins'. Independently of my issues with the refutations, though, this falls into a similar issue with the previous issues - what's the mechanic behind 'birth[ing] twins' here? Did they literally, directly change the mother's womb so that she would give birth to two people instead of one? Or did they, for example, change the events surrounding the birth so that she would give birth to twins? We don't know. The scan doesn't say how it works. I recognise the distinct possibility here, but I wouldn't sign off on this as a feat of biological manipulation off of the scan in isolation.
So, I have to agree with the removal of the ability. I would not be surprised if the Sisters of Fate have more explicit feats of biological manipulation, but I find all of these suggestions tenuous.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
