• 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.

An issue with Abstract Existence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that's what I said.

Type 2 abstract existence = you don't die as long as the abstraction exists

Type 8 immortality = You don't die as long as something else isn't destroyed, and it includes stuff like abstractions.

Type 2 AE is a subset of type 8 immortality
 
Kaltias said:
Yes, that's what I said.

Type 2 abstract existence = you don't die as long as the abstraction exists

Type 8 immortality = You don't die as long as something else isn't destroyed, and it includes stuff like abstractions.

Type 2 AE is a subset of type 8 immortality
Click to expand...
While that is a bit specified for Type 2, it did mentioned the part on how they can be affected without directly altering the said concept it seems.
 

Type 8 isn't just considered a conceptual immorality though.

Reliant Immortality: The character cannot die as long as a certain being, object, or even concept exists.

Slight tangent, but, profiles should probably list the type of Immortality that the type 8 grants, so that people who have type 1 reliant on a toothpick don't stomp Goku.
 
Getting back to this to answer Kal:

The issue isn't really so much redundancy. The issue is more that it doesn't even describe a form of abstract existence. If you can govern a concept just because you're said to be an embodiment of it, but you can still die and interact with things as normal, what part of that would constitute existing as an abstraction?

@Ant I disagree with this. Feats come over statements, so if someone's stated to be abstract and it's just contradicted, evidently the statement was wrong or not using the term embodiment in the way that we would take as constituting an abstract existence.
 
You have a good point. I am just used to fiction not making any sense in this regard.

However, if we remove type 3, somebody needs to remove it from all the relevant profiles that link to the Abstract Existence page, along with the associated category at the bottom of the page.
 
@Wok

I mean, there is nothing i'd call "abstract" about type 2 either.

You can do whatever you want to a type 2 abstract and it will work, literally the only thing that wouldn't work is trying to kill them because they just come back (Which would happen with any type 8)

But fighting a type 2 abstract doesn't require any sort of conceptual manipulation, you could unironically punch them until they're KO'd.
 
That sound more like a incap kinda thing for Type 2 rather than Type 1 plus Type 2 did mention in order to put them down, you have to permanently destroy the abstraction. It is stated and put that way after all: "Embodies an abstraction, and can be resurrected or regenerate indefinitely thanks to it. Destroying the abstraction is required to permanently kill those characters, but they can still be affected without directly altering it."

Anyway the only issue is what kind of method was used to incapacitate a Type 2, Kalt.
 
I'm aware of what it says, I wrote the page.

What i'm saying is that "the character itself is not abstract" applies perfectly to type 2 as well. A normal human reliant on a concept would qualify as a type 2 abstract as per our current definition.

And literally any method of incapacitation would work on a type 2 abstract. Again, literally the only thing that wouldn't work is killing them
 
Not sure though as punching a abstract being doesn't imply it will affect them per se on the physical level nor does it mean they somehow get knocked out by physical means. I can not even think of a good example of that anyway given how DC and Marvel are definitely out of the question due to inconsistencies and PIS being used in those two fictional series alone.


Edit: Wait a normal human reliant on a concept? I not sure about that part as they will still be a normal human witih Type 8 anyway.
 
@Kaltias

Would you be willing to rewrite the description for type 3 so it better clarifies that a character actually has to be/embody a concept in order to qualify?
 
Okay. Some people in a Bleach revision thread still managed to misunderstand it. Maybe I could try to revise the description a bit?
 
I don't really think that bleach thread was misunderstanding type 3. Under the definition, those characters would have qualified. I'll get to the other stuff later.
 
Well, they were not embodiments of any concepts, so I think that we need to improve on the wording.
 
I can also see Type 2 as just another type of Immortality type 8; even characters like Medeus have stuff like "Cannot be destroyed as long as darkness exists inside the hearts of mankind". Which could be interpreted as Abstract Existence Type 2. Type 3 on the other hand is literally just not a power at all was the central problem.

So I'm neutral on Type 2 staying or being reworded, but I think it might be a good idea to remove Type 3.
 
Well, I seem to be outvoted then.
 
I dunno if i'm not explaining my point properly, but what i'm trying to say is that type 2 and type 3 have the exact same issue.

Neither is its own thing, both are "This dude has this power for this reason".

Type 2 is "I'm immortal because I embody something", type 3 is "I have concept manipulation because I embody something".

As I said, feel free to remove type 3, but doing that while leaving type 2 is just addressing half of the problem
 
Well, I still prefer to keep them, and better clarifying what type 3 means, but nobody else seems to agree with me.
 
I agree with Ant, if anything.

Besides, i was wondering, should there be a power that would include characters that are the embodiments of non-abstract things? Like being the embodiment of elements, weather, planets, and the such. Since Abstract Existence does not cover that kind of stuff.
 
Tsubasa16 said:
I agree with Ant, if anything.
Besides, i was wondering, should there be a power that would include characters that are the embodiments of non-abstract things? Like being the embodiment of elements, weather, planets, and the such. Since Abstract Existence does not cover that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
I can not think of examples that will mean that will be the case of not being abstract though. Technically speaking elements, weather, planets, and the like sound more like they are actually the things they represent. In additional to the possibility it might not be taken quite literally especially if what being shown is what contradict on what has been stated to be specific.
 
I don't mind Type 2 as much, since it actually does things, and some embodiments of something can be just physical manifestations of a concept instead of literally being the very concept.

But it is an issue indeed, since a physical being relying on a concept to stay alive isn't abstract at all.
 
I agree about the removal of type 3. But the type 2 situation seems like it's own order of business even if its deemed to also not be a form of abstract existence, so should it be left for another thread or discussed here after the consensus for type 3 is reached?
 
There are different sub-sets of Type 2 to consider too.

Some only have have some sort of "contract" or something like that with an abstract existence and can therefore be revived by relying on that.

Others though are either directly connected or even outright "partially fused" with an abstraction, or perhaps have even been outright born from an abstraction.

Due to that I don't think outright removing Type 2 is a good idea, but we could "reorder" things so that the current Type 3 gets removed and Type 2 is split into the different variations depending on how the individual in question is connected to the abstraction?
 
I think type 2 is still valid, because the "truer existence" would still be the concept as that's what they're tied to. It wouldn't apply to everyone with conceptual immortality though.
 
Mmm... this doesn' t appear to have concluded (or at least getting something actually done regarding this), so I'll go ahead and do a bump.

Overall, it seems type 3 is being agreed on being removed.
 
Necro as this is, Bob has a point. Type 3 Abstract existence doesn't really make much sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
7
Views
952
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
Quintessence_PE
  • Locked
YanSen ae type 1
Replies
19
Views
1K
Quintessence_PE
Quintessence_PE
God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
32
Views
3K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Ar1216789
Question about Abstract Existence
Replies
25
Views
1K
Ar1216789
Ar1216789
Megaraptor149
  • Locked
GOH: Regarding Abstract Existence (Type 1)
Replies
19
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top