- 8,438
- 3,292
NOTE: AS REQUESTED BY ANT, STAFF ONLY
Man, another big post, huh? Well this one isn't a far-reaching, and really doesn't impact that many profiles. However, it does have a very significant effect on how we treat the profiles that have this power, though I know DontTalk, Executor, and Ever agree with at least some of the points here.
Introductio
Arceus via concept hax
If asked "what is the strongest power off the top of your head?" many of you very well may answer with Conceptual Manipulation, and this would be a very good answer! Or would it?
Is Conceptual Manipulation really the brokeback overpowered ability we make it out to be? I want to answer you today and tell you: It is, but only some of the time. The fact of the matter is that Conceptual Manipulation is a power that can be incredibly powerful to the point of being a Top-Tier power or utterly worthless. This comes from the fact that conceptual manipulation varies in power and applicatio.
In fact, Conceptual Manipulation can vary wildly based off of three key principles.
1. The Object of the Concept
2. The Manipulation of the Concept
3. The Level of the Concept
Depending on these principles, you can make the power completely useless or overwhelmingly powerful, and as of now we have them lumped into each other with no differentiation between them. Right now, concept manip is concept manip with only a couple differences.
The Conceptual Differences
1. Object of the Concept
By far the most identifiable and currently acknowledged limitation of concept manipulation, the object of the concept is the specific idea or object that the concept is bound to. For example, being able to use the concept of evil does not mean that a character can just win "via concept hax". How does the object of the concept allow for a victory? What can it accomplish? This does, in part, play into the other two pieces of the puzzle, but it is very important to identify what the character can manipulate conceptually, or else you'll run into a NLF that ends with an unjustifiably overpowered character.
While the object of the concept can range from almost anything, it is important to note that certain objects will inherently be more devastating in application than others if the object has the same Level and Manipulation type. Someone who can manipulate the concept of toilets will lose to someone who can manipulate the concept of reality so long as the former concept does not have a special quality that makes it more powerful.
For those of you thinking "this seems obvious" hang on, I'm getting to the good stuff, but this needed to be gotten out of the way.
2. Manipulation of the Concept
As as preface to this, DontTalk wrote a good blog about this section of conceptual manipulation, and it serves as a good read going into this CRT.
This essentially means "how can the character manipulate the concept?" This is a very important question to ask, as there is a massive difference between creating, changing, destroying, or embodying a concept a concept. Sorry, Cal, but I'm taking shots at the Lake Trio for an example here.
We currently treat the Lake Trio to have conceptual level manipulation of willpower, emotion, and knowledge, respectively. Only the thing is, they never demonstrate this. They embody it, sure, but they have not shown the ability to manipulate the very essence of their respective conceptual object. I am made out of flesh and bone. I cannot alter the concept of flesh and bone. Similarly, those who Lucemo create concepts cannot do anything but that unless they have shown otherwise. We can't assume that, just because you created something, that you can destroy it when it comes to hax. This isn't AP and the transition of creation to destruction or manipulation to destruction cannot be made without evidence. Similarly, destroying a concept does not indicate that you can create or embody it, unless otherwise shown. So yes, this would hit everyone who has made a concept, yet never destroyed it, hard.
Speaking of destroying concepts, that leads me into the final significant point.
3. Level of the Concept
Though it is not as common sense-based as the previous two points, there are multiple levels of possible concepts and their interpretations. This Wiki has a very odd habit of kinda making an amalgamation of two types of concepts and we shift back and forth between what it constitutes. It is time to leave that behind and get concrete.
There are multiple levels of concepts. What do I mean by that? Well, that is simple: some showings of concepts in fiction are not nearly as impressive as others because concept manipulation is not across-the-board in similarity, even with point 1 and 2 holding constant. There are levels of concepts that vary wildly in power. The highest level cannot be achieved even by most god figures, while the other can be achieved by a human. And both of these are in the same category without any distinction, as is. That's a pretty serious issue.
The majority of the following deals with an issue known as the Problem of Universals, so if you want to read up on some sources for the ideas being presented here, you are free to do so.
In fiction, the Level of the concept completely depends on what is presented. The presentation of concepts can be wildly varying for different verses, so the acknowledgement and understanding of a difference in paramount in establishing a notion of power for a character's conceptual manipulation. The following are 5 levels that can be generally outlined by a philosophical school of thought. The following list the levels in descending order, from strongest to weakest.
Type 1: Platonic Realism: Platonic Realism holds that concepts (or forms) are abstract in nature and are utterly transcendent of reality. Everything about reality merely "participates", or takes from, these concepts. These concepts, if manipulated, must be manipulated to the point that the abstract concept itself, independent of the universe, is manipulated. These forms must predate the universe, as they came before and are independent of its existence. To manipulate such forms is to manipulate something utterly beyond reality that shapes it from the outside.
Type 2: Aristotelian Realism: Aristotelian Realism holds that concepts are abstract in nature, yet bound to the object of their concept in reality. An Aristotelian Concept will exist and remain so long as its object does as well. If one was to manipulate this, every object that is a part of the concept would change with it. These have to come after the universe's birth, and are dependent on the current existence of the object of the concept (if "circles" were eliminated from the universe, so would the concept of "circle-ness").
Type 3: Lesser Realism: Lesser Realism, while not an outright term, holds that concepts are abstract in nature, yet are bound to and change with the waking population. The framework for these abstracts is built by the population and is held in and changed by the collective belief about the concept itself. To manipulate this concept entails only manipulating the conceptual framework of every individual, thus changing the concept itself in the process. That said, directly manipulating this abstract concept would change the framework of the object of the concept for all individuals, yet the fundamental object of the concept "circle-ness" would remain unchanged in the material universe.
Type 4: Idealism: Idealism holds that concepts are not truly abstract, but rather are a framework of accepted ideas among a group of beholders. All concepts that exist within this level are created with facets naturally imbued with the rational mind, with the concept of "circular" not being an abstract concept, but rather just a fact of the logical mind. In this framework, all things are mentally constructed and thus mentally manipulated. This is very similar to Type 5, although not quite as frail, and thus will be indirectly elaborated on below.
Type 5: Nominalism: Nominalism holds that concepts are not truly abstract, but rather there are only particulars and individuals. That way this form of conceptual manipulation only manipulate the concepts held by particulars, and thus can be achieved with far more minor means than conventional conceptual manipulation, such as mind manipulation. That said, this is still an answer to the Problem of Universes that uses concepts, and as such should still hold under Conceptual manipulation, as lack-luster as it is (for example, one's concepts of guns could be altered simply by observing a school shooting).
Finishing Up
TLDR: Not all concepts are equal. They can vary wildly in the object of the concept, manipulation of the concept, and level of the concept. There is a big difference from slightly altering the concept of band-aids on a Nominalistic level and destroying the concept of existence on an Platonic level.
Man, another big post, huh? Well this one isn't a far-reaching, and really doesn't impact that many profiles. However, it does have a very significant effect on how we treat the profiles that have this power, though I know DontTalk, Executor, and Ever agree with at least some of the points here.
Introductio
If asked "what is the strongest power off the top of your head?" many of you very well may answer with Conceptual Manipulation, and this would be a very good answer! Or would it?
Is Conceptual Manipulation really the brokeback overpowered ability we make it out to be? I want to answer you today and tell you: It is, but only some of the time. The fact of the matter is that Conceptual Manipulation is a power that can be incredibly powerful to the point of being a Top-Tier power or utterly worthless. This comes from the fact that conceptual manipulation varies in power and applicatio.
In fact, Conceptual Manipulation can vary wildly based off of three key principles.
1. The Object of the Concept
2. The Manipulation of the Concept
3. The Level of the Concept
Depending on these principles, you can make the power completely useless or overwhelmingly powerful, and as of now we have them lumped into each other with no differentiation between them. Right now, concept manip is concept manip with only a couple differences.
The Conceptual Differences
1. Object of the Concept
By far the most identifiable and currently acknowledged limitation of concept manipulation, the object of the concept is the specific idea or object that the concept is bound to. For example, being able to use the concept of evil does not mean that a character can just win "via concept hax". How does the object of the concept allow for a victory? What can it accomplish? This does, in part, play into the other two pieces of the puzzle, but it is very important to identify what the character can manipulate conceptually, or else you'll run into a NLF that ends with an unjustifiably overpowered character.
While the object of the concept can range from almost anything, it is important to note that certain objects will inherently be more devastating in application than others if the object has the same Level and Manipulation type. Someone who can manipulate the concept of toilets will lose to someone who can manipulate the concept of reality so long as the former concept does not have a special quality that makes it more powerful.
For those of you thinking "this seems obvious" hang on, I'm getting to the good stuff, but this needed to be gotten out of the way.
2. Manipulation of the Concept
As as preface to this, DontTalk wrote a good blog about this section of conceptual manipulation, and it serves as a good read going into this CRT.
This essentially means "how can the character manipulate the concept?" This is a very important question to ask, as there is a massive difference between creating, changing, destroying, or embodying a concept a concept. Sorry, Cal, but I'm taking shots at the Lake Trio for an example here.
We currently treat the Lake Trio to have conceptual level manipulation of willpower, emotion, and knowledge, respectively. Only the thing is, they never demonstrate this. They embody it, sure, but they have not shown the ability to manipulate the very essence of their respective conceptual object. I am made out of flesh and bone. I cannot alter the concept of flesh and bone. Similarly, those who Lucemo create concepts cannot do anything but that unless they have shown otherwise. We can't assume that, just because you created something, that you can destroy it when it comes to hax. This isn't AP and the transition of creation to destruction or manipulation to destruction cannot be made without evidence. Similarly, destroying a concept does not indicate that you can create or embody it, unless otherwise shown. So yes, this would hit everyone who has made a concept, yet never destroyed it, hard.
Speaking of destroying concepts, that leads me into the final significant point.
3. Level of the Concept
Though it is not as common sense-based as the previous two points, there are multiple levels of possible concepts and their interpretations. This Wiki has a very odd habit of kinda making an amalgamation of two types of concepts and we shift back and forth between what it constitutes. It is time to leave that behind and get concrete.
There are multiple levels of concepts. What do I mean by that? Well, that is simple: some showings of concepts in fiction are not nearly as impressive as others because concept manipulation is not across-the-board in similarity, even with point 1 and 2 holding constant. There are levels of concepts that vary wildly in power. The highest level cannot be achieved even by most god figures, while the other can be achieved by a human. And both of these are in the same category without any distinction, as is. That's a pretty serious issue.
The majority of the following deals with an issue known as the Problem of Universals, so if you want to read up on some sources for the ideas being presented here, you are free to do so.
In fiction, the Level of the concept completely depends on what is presented. The presentation of concepts can be wildly varying for different verses, so the acknowledgement and understanding of a difference in paramount in establishing a notion of power for a character's conceptual manipulation. The following are 5 levels that can be generally outlined by a philosophical school of thought. The following list the levels in descending order, from strongest to weakest.
Type 1: Platonic Realism: Platonic Realism holds that concepts (or forms) are abstract in nature and are utterly transcendent of reality. Everything about reality merely "participates", or takes from, these concepts. These concepts, if manipulated, must be manipulated to the point that the abstract concept itself, independent of the universe, is manipulated. These forms must predate the universe, as they came before and are independent of its existence. To manipulate such forms is to manipulate something utterly beyond reality that shapes it from the outside.
Type 2: Aristotelian Realism: Aristotelian Realism holds that concepts are abstract in nature, yet bound to the object of their concept in reality. An Aristotelian Concept will exist and remain so long as its object does as well. If one was to manipulate this, every object that is a part of the concept would change with it. These have to come after the universe's birth, and are dependent on the current existence of the object of the concept (if "circles" were eliminated from the universe, so would the concept of "circle-ness").
Type 3: Lesser Realism: Lesser Realism, while not an outright term, holds that concepts are abstract in nature, yet are bound to and change with the waking population. The framework for these abstracts is built by the population and is held in and changed by the collective belief about the concept itself. To manipulate this concept entails only manipulating the conceptual framework of every individual, thus changing the concept itself in the process. That said, directly manipulating this abstract concept would change the framework of the object of the concept for all individuals, yet the fundamental object of the concept "circle-ness" would remain unchanged in the material universe.
Type 4: Idealism: Idealism holds that concepts are not truly abstract, but rather are a framework of accepted ideas among a group of beholders. All concepts that exist within this level are created with facets naturally imbued with the rational mind, with the concept of "circular" not being an abstract concept, but rather just a fact of the logical mind. In this framework, all things are mentally constructed and thus mentally manipulated. This is very similar to Type 5, although not quite as frail, and thus will be indirectly elaborated on below.
Type 5: Nominalism: Nominalism holds that concepts are not truly abstract, but rather there are only particulars and individuals. That way this form of conceptual manipulation only manipulate the concepts held by particulars, and thus can be achieved with far more minor means than conventional conceptual manipulation, such as mind manipulation. That said, this is still an answer to the Problem of Universes that uses concepts, and as such should still hold under Conceptual manipulation, as lack-luster as it is (for example, one's concepts of guns could be altered simply by observing a school shooting).
Finishing Up
TLDR: Not all concepts are equal. They can vary wildly in the object of the concept, manipulation of the concept, and level of the concept. There is a big difference from slightly altering the concept of band-aids on a Nominalistic level and destroying the concept of existence on an Platonic level.
