Death and Regeneration

[Bobsican]

Moving on from here per Glass's request.

Basically, there's a rising concern from the recently added note on how we should tier death in relation to a given regeneration level, my proposal is to merely add yet another subsection to just leave it on a case by case basis based on what exactly a given death in question involves, as just requiring a character to be deemed in-universe as dead is quite inconsistent as the term is quite variable for our purposes, and then there's the matter of this becoming even more inconsistent when we have to deal with characters that technically weren't alive to begin with.

And so something like the following may be added to the Regeneration page after the recently added bit depending on how this thread goes (credit to @ImmortalDread BTW):

It should be noted that death can be a subjective concept, particularly when applied to characters that were not originally alive in the traditional sense. To avoid inconsistencies in our analysis, it is important to define this concept for our purposes. Accordingly, any instances of regeneration that do not meet this criterion will not be considered in our analysis of the godly level of regenerative capability.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Aye, thanks for the credits. Also, I won't say much. I share the same sentiment as the note I created. I don't think it is innocuous and can exceedingly clear out some confusions. Recently there were QnA about the death. So I don't see any harm for this small note addition.

 

[KingTempest]

@Pain_to12 , @Theglassman12 , @Psychomaster35 , @GyroNutz

 

[PrinceofPein]

Honestly, I don't see the point of this, as you say we should make it "case by case" basis, i.e. how the verse treats it, there can be no size fits all for death, hence it will still be how the verse treats it,
I see no valid argument against using in-universe definition of death, which inconsistency can it lead to?

Basically, there's a rising concern from the recently added note on how we should tier death in relation to a given regeneration level, my proposal is to merely add yet another subsection to just leave it on a case by case basis based on what exactly a given death in question involves, as just requiring a character to be deemed in-universe as dead is quite inconsistent as the term is quite variable for our purposes,

How exactly?

and then there's the matter of this becoming even more inconsistent when we have to deal with characters that technically weren't alive to begin with.

Well that is why we have something called "undead" or rather types of immortality.
So in a universe, if you are considered to be an undead or not alive and yet existing, you get the appropriate type of immortality.
But if you are considered dead, like dead dead, I mean dead and no longer existing, you should also be considered dead on the wiki, or is your proposal that, someone can be considered no longer existing in their verse but here we can make a standard that says the person is still alive, so I really do not see the point of this thread if that is not what you are suggesting. Again, case by case basis is still, "How the verse in question treats it", which means "If your verse considers you to be dead, you are dead"

 

[Bobsican]

Honestly, I don't see the point of this, as you say we should make it "case by case" basis, i.e. how the verse treats it, there can be no size fits all for death, hence it will still be how the verse treats it,
I see no valid argument against using in-universe definition of death, which inconsistency can it lead to?

While that may be the (unwritten) standard either way, it'd be worthwhile to consider mentioning either way as it seems this isn't as intuitive as one would think, as it was mentioned before.

That said, each verse can define "death" differently for our purposes, ranging anywhere from what to us would be High-Godly to around Mid damage, especially in cases based around death hax that isn't explained beyond merely inducing death.

How exactly?

And so something like the following may be added to the Regeneration page after the recently added bit depending on how this thread goes (credit to @ImmortalDread BTW):

It should be noted that death can be a subjective concept, particularly when applied to characters that were not originally alive in the traditional sense. To avoid inconsistencies in our analysis, it is important to define this concept for our purposes. Accordingly, any instances of regeneration that do not meet this criterion will not be considered in our analysis of the godly level of regenerative capability.

Well that is why we have something called "undead" or rather types of immortality.
So in a universe, if you are considered to be an undead or not alive and yet existing, you get the appropriate type of immortality.
But if you are considered dead, like dead dead, I mean dead and no longer existing, you should also be considered dead on the wiki, or is your proposal that, someone can be considered no longer existing in their verse but here we can make a standard that says the person is still alive, so I really do not see the point of this thread if that is not what you are suggesting. Again, case by case basis is still, "How the verse in question treats it", which means "If your verse considers you to be dead, you are dead"

I mean, we also have cases like robots that wouldn't really qualify for any kind of immortality by default yet technically aren't alive, and so a verse can be considerably more vague for our purposes when it's destroyed or the like, and then there's the matter of the term "death" or similar not being used in-universe, so it'd be better to just derive from given feats and context over requiring rather specific terminology, this isn't tier 1.

Beyond that I'm not really proposing a standard change overall, just a mere clarification on how to treat death for our purposes, aka, case by case as you've said, for the most part, as it isn't that intuitive as said before as well.

 

[Mr._Undetected]

I don't get it , what exactly is your proposal?

I mean, the low-godly level(if that regeneration was mentioned) is the regeneration level that regenerates the physique even after being completely destroyed, and killing someone in fiction does have many ways, even with the blink of an eye, and there's no need to destroy the body, but... I still don't get the point..

 

[KLOL506]

Honestly, just go case-by-case here please.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I still do not see the point of the thread, please lets do as KLOL said, case by case i.e. How your own universe treats it.

 

[Bobsican]

I'd rather wait for ImmortalDread as she's the one that formulated the original proposal.

 

[Antvasima]

Should I call for help from some of our administrators and thread moderators with this discussion?

 

[Bobsican]

It may be best to wait for Dread first to avoid confusion.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Potemkat]

Shouldn't it just be that "any kind of death not caused by the destruction of a body part" are things you can't regenerate from?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I would preferably add a note that explains that death definition is case to case because people understand the functionality of death manipulation wrong and thinks it could automatically negate any high godly regeneration user.

Tho, I must admit that the last line from my note is added in wrong place because it supposed to be with the other part of note to make sense.

Ant did not use this definition from Pain_12 (the main concern I had with)

"Statements or feats of regeneration in which characters are able to revive as long as a part of their existence, such as their souls or minds, remain intact, or that involve the regeneration of a non-physical aspect of the body while the body itself remains intact after death, do not warrant godly levels of regeneration due to involving resurrection rather than the complete destruction and reforming of both the physical and non-physical aspects of a body while remaining alive, which is a fundamental requirement to qualify for godly regenerations."

He used this one

Statements or feats of regeneration in which characters are able to survive as long as a part of their existence, such as their souls or minds, remain intact, or that involve the regeneration of a non-physical aspect of the body while the body itself remains intact, do not warrant godly levels of regeneration due to involving resurrection rather than the complete destruction and reforming of both the physical and non-physical aspects of a body, which is a fundamental requirement to qualify.

So I think we can close this thread because the main concern that I had is removed anyway.

 

[FinePoint]

I feel as if regeneration should only be concerned with what is physically, spiritually, or conceptually restored, rather than trying to define death, which brings us into a whole massive mess of issues.

For example, a person is dead when their brain is damaged beyond repair, and so to bring them back to life in the traditional sense is to regenerate a brain. If they're considered dead in-verse because their soul is destroyed, then to bring them back to life means regenerating a soul.
Rather than classify the regeneration as undoing death, we can just classify it as regenerating a brain and a soul respectively.

For abilities that are specific to death, like death manipulation, this obviously depends on how it works in that universe. We lump abilities into categories, but verse-equalization doesn't extend to the point that we can't consider the context of abilities. For the sake a fight, it's actually irrelevant in most cases (except for things like death manipulation obviously), since death is no longer a requirement, only that they're unable to fight.

TL;DR
Don't define death, and don't relate it to regeneration.
Leave it case-by-case, and have regeneration relate specifically to what's being regenerated, not an abstract like "life and death."

 

[ImmortalDread]

I already agreed with this. Thanks to @Antvasima, he removed the term “Death” from the draft.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, then it seems this thread can be closed as there's nothing to change on a page then, this thread can still be used as a precedent should this issue come up again, however.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am relieved to learn that the term “death” has been removed from the note that was added by @Antvasima. I had been concerned that the inclusion of this term might be problematic, and I was prepared to debate the inclusion of my own note if necessary. However, with the removal of this term, my concerns have been addressed, so thank you, @Bobsican.

 

[Antvasima]

So I should close this thread now then?

 

[Bobsican]

Indeed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so.

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.