Dying by natural causes mid battle (SBA debate)

[Andytrenom]

@Earl No, Incap is still a thing so if the characters in your example stay sealed or frozen for a day, they would just lose

And I'm pretty sure we are talking about cases where it is actually reasonable to assume one character won't lose before the opponent's lifespan runs out, such as if they have good enough regen or perfectly match the enemy in all stats except lifespan or whatever

 

[Firephoenixearl]

So only in cases where the fight continues to happen?

"Character X is extremely cocky so he just toys with his opponent, so he kicks Y around but spontaneously dies of natural causes, giving Y the win"

How about this then? In this kind of scenario who would be the winner?

 

[The_Calaca]

"Spontaneously dies of natural causes" is a wrong way to call it imo.

I don't think there's any character in fiction so cocky that he won't defeat their opponent until they, IDK, get a heart attack or die of old age. Giving X a heart attack is a wrong way to give Y the victory, at least if done randomly just because cockyness.

Nobody would torture a dude for 40 years if he knows he can't live that much time. Even doing it for a day is dubious as an argument. SBA puts the characters willing to kill, if they play around for a bit it's nice and could give Y a window to turn the tides, but X would eventually kill Y no matter what.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Well it could be a case of someone who suffers from health problems. Of which there aren't few. Think of something like Sasuke vs Itachi for example. If a thread were to end up like that, (the person dying because they refused to finish off their opponent in time, so they self-destructed in a sense. Would that really give the opponent a true win?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

If they are dumb enough to toy while they are literally about to die, sure.

I can't remember a character that would do that while literally dying regardless of what the enemy does, tough.

 

[The_Calaca]

It's a form of outlast their opponent, actually.

If a character with health problems is so cocky that he doesn't kill the opponent in time despite having the means to do it, then that's a character's flaw. We consider those matchups where one of the sides loses because their acting in-character is either stupid or careless, even lacking the self-conservative instinct. So if X doesn't kill Y despite having health problems, then it's a victory for Y because, in the end, he won the fight despite being previously stomped but not defeated.

If X is superior but Y is yet able to resist the fight and X dies because of the health problems, then that's Y outlasting X, which we count as a wincon already.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Ok, fair enough then. If incap negs this whole point im down. I still feel this can get abused, but can't think of anything concrete.

 

[The_Calaca]

I think it'll be somewhat abused as well, but Incon matches ain't as common as victories/losses and it can be easily prevented with the right arguments in each matchup.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I think it'll be somewhat abused as well, but Incon matches ain't as common as victories/losses and it can be easily prevented with the right arguments in each matchup.

I guess at this point, we can just let this be a thing, and see with time the way it can be abused, and fix the rule or add other mini rules accordingly.

 

[The_Calaca]

It seems to be the best approach at the moment, yes.

 

[Crzer07]

If you specify the kind of desired win con then it won't, although these kinds of wincons should be included in the profiles as well to avoid confusion.

 

[Nepuko]

Hm, removed? was pretty sure this wasn't staff only . . . .

Anyway, I kinda agree with the change, as I find it reasonable. As DontTalk said, this dosen't only concern humans and the likes, for exemple I know of a verse where characters can sit there for 100 years and other fight for 60 years straight.

 

[Elizhaa]

Dvorak removed his own reply.

 

[Dvorak1902]

I removed it because I had made a mistake.

For a serious question. Would one of the participants going insane from just standing there for all of eternity be considered valid?

Like "Eventually, X stopped thinking".

 

[Promestein]

Death by any cause during a battle is a loss, as far ass I'm concerned.

 

[AKM sama]

However I do think that if both characters are in a boring deadlock for several years and one of them dies of old age, it should be counted as inconclusive.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

This is supposed to chronicle fights.

That's not a result of a fight.

Imagine if that happened in an actual boxing match. Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier ends in a tie (I know it didn't but work with me) yet decades later Ali wins because Frazier died first.

 

[Damage3245]

@The real cal howard; I don't think that's a comparable scenario.

In that scenario, the match is already over.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

You guys are asking for this to be an actual result

 

[Elizhaa]

However I do think that if both characters are in a boring deadlock for several years and one of them dies of old age, it should be counted as inconclusive.

I mean they way I see it if you can't predict who died first assuming both characters have standard human weaknesses in these case then inconclusive would be fine. But, if you can accuretely predict the character, (who most of the time for have abilties like immortality, self-substance, or related abilities and somecase high stamina feats of fighting for day months, or years), outlasts in a fight then a winner would be decided.

 

[Crabwhale]

If some characters can die because of illness or something, then yes, I do agree with that.

But if say, two characters inconclusive each other, and one of them is mortal, and the other is not, this can be used as ground to say character B wins because character A will die in a normal human/alien/whatever lifetime, however long it may be.

There needs to be a limit to this.

 

[Crabwhale]

Otherwise a huge chunk of our matches could be declared from inconclusive to "X character wins because he outlasts".

Does that seem fair to anyone?

 

[ChocomilkAlex]

I agree

 

[Damage3245]

Otherwise a huge chunk of our matches could be declared from inconclusive to "X character wins because he outlasts".
Does that seem fair to anyone?

Sounds pretty fair to me.

If a character has an ability that grants them an advantage over their opponent (whether it be something offensive like Soul Manipulation or something supportive like flawless Immortality) then they should be considered the "Winner" if their victory is achieved through that ability.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

If some characters can die because of illness or something, then yes, I do agree with that.

But if say, two characters inconclusive each other, and one of them is mortal, and the other is not, this can be used as ground to say character B wins because character A will die in a normal human/alien/whatever lifetime, however long it may be.

There needs to be a limit to this.

That's not really an argument.

I guess you could argue that if two characters are so much a counter to each other that they can fight for decades non-stop, until one dies, then it would be a stomp because the immortal would always win (if he had a chance to win, it would almost certainly happen over the years). That doesn't mean this should be against the rules by Sba, because extraordinary situations are a thing.

It's not like making a match where a guy wins 100% of the time suddenly becomes fair depending on how long it takes, you know.

 

[Elizhaa]

I don't think another SBA rule is needed either for a time limit since it would arbitrary. Added that most of characters would died days from stnadard human weakness as I explained above. I think Ricsi's interpretation would be valid.

 

[PhantomØ4]

I agree with the idea that "winning" because one simply has a bigger life time should count as inconclusive or should at least be limited.

 

[KGiffoni]

What's the case of characters who fake their death to the point experienced doctors recognize them as dead but they "regain" life some time after? Such as Kaku Kaioh's.

 

[Elizhaa]

What's the case of characters who fake their death to the point experienced doctors recognize them as dead but they "regain" life some time after? Such as Kaku Kaioh's.

Is to escape battle? Since the topic is on SBA, it already cannot be done:

Standard Battle Assumptions:

• State of mind: In character, but willing to kill. The characters will employ their usual battle strategies, including flaws such as being casual, however, must be willing to kill the opponent even if they usually won't.
  Furthermore characters will not give up of their own accord. That means a character that is uninterested or sees no chance of winning won't simply leave and characters wouldn't simply become friends with each other. This doesn't prevent a character being made to give up, because the other character manipulates them via things like, for example, mind control, fear inducement, psychological tricks or superhuman charisma.

 

[KGiffoni]

What's the case of characters who fake their death to the point experienced doctors recognize them as dead but they "regain" life some time after? Such as Kaku Kaioh's.

Is to escape battle? Since the topic is on SBA, it already cannot be done:
Standard Battle Assumptions:

• State of mind: In character, but willing to kill. The characters will employ their usual battle strategies, including flaws such as being casual, however, must be willing to kill the opponent even if they usually won't.
  Furthermore characters will not give up of their own accord. That means a character that is uninterested or sees no chance of winning won't simply leave and characters wouldn't simply become friends with each other. This doesn't prevent a character being made to give up, because the other character manipulates them via things like, for example, mind control, fear inducement, psychological tricks or superhuman charisma.

It's for when he sees an attack that will surely kill him or overall when he thinks he can't win. Kaku Kaioh considers it to be a "sucess". So yeah, i think you could say it's for escaping battle.

 

[Elizhaa]

Yeah, escaping battle which is akin to given up is not valid in SBA.

 

[Imaginym]

Faking death can be used as a means of "giving up", but it's not the only use.

Being able to trick someone's senses, is useful, since it may allow for a surprise attack, such as by striking after they turn their back on what they thought was a corpse.

It's especially potent if they can't damage/kill the faker beyond a supposed corpse state.

Regarding the boxing match comparison Cal posted : A real world boxing match isn't fought under SBA. It has rules, including ones such as "don't kill your opponent", & "you are able & allowed to surrender/forfeit".

Furthermore, the point of a sports match or duel is a show of skill in some specific aspect, like fisticuffs or use of handguns, etc.; The purpose is different.

I'd presume someone dying of a heart attack isn't really a win or a loss in a real boxing match because neither party was trying to kill one another, & there isn't that STRONG (At least, not especially direct.) a correlation between your ability to professionally box & your chances of experiencing cardiac arrest.


Whereas in a Vs Match, the goal is the defeat or removal, location-wise, of your opponent.

Characters don't give up/surrender in Vs Matches because SBA doesn't allow them to; They're not going to abandon the fight entirely for no reason.

But there's a difference between:

A. Leaving the fight, & through no deliberate/knowing actions of yours, your opponent has a heart attack 10 years later.

B. Fighting someone who has vulnerability to cardiac arrest as a weakness, the combatant learning of it, & being avoidant of the fight while trying to exploit that weakness.


To put it another way, we don't assume characters will die to natural causes that aren't things we know or have reasonable cause to believe they are a weakness.

It's reasonable for us debaters to suppose a person will die of old age if they've shown nothing to prevent that. Likewise, a combatant might assume an elderly human would die of old age, whether that assumption ends up being right or wrong.

But it's another thing for us to assume a combatant, when they're old, will contract leprosy or alzheimers or some other debilitating issue that kills them, unless there's something on their profile that gives us knowledge they will, or reasonable cause to believe they will.


Assuming someone will die of old age or other reasonable weaknesses their profile makes clear or provides basis for a strong case for the existence of is reasonable.

More reasonable than supposing they won't die of old age without evidence otherwise.


Actively exploiting that is a lose condition that can be assumed in debate, if the profile supports that. Just like if you need to breathe, you can be suffocated, drowned, buried alive, if you're light enough you can be thrown into space, etc.

And it might SOUND unreasonable for characters to continue fighting for days, weeks, months or years, but SBA says characters won't voluntarily give up, surrender, abandon the fight, etc. & are willing to kill.

Saying that they would abandon the fight, even if it's because of the duration, contradicts SBA, & after such a long time, some characters could think to try to engineer their opponent losing to natural causes.

 

[ChocomilkAlex]

abandoning a fight is just indirect BFR

 

[Elizhaa]

@Imaginym, I will say this most of those human characters in the wiki have standard human weakness; there are rarely added since this weakness is not notable, though.

It take an even bigger assumption just say a characters with standard human weakness and without feats will last fighting a lifetime straight without foods, water, and sleep to die of old age; this is go against Occam's Razor. Normal logic still appply and feats matter.

 

[N_Kardashev]

If you run away then you lose. Just like how you judge a fight in real life, the one who takes the most damage is the loser, the one who gets their ass handed to them is the loser, the one who surrenders or runs away (with no signs of intention to retaliate) is the loser at least for that round. Now this not to say one may plan a surprise attack, dox, lawsuit or poison their food at a later date in which case is prep territory and would be part of an even bigger battle/war. And yes even with cases of lifetime feuds, life span is a factor and the one who passes away first is again, the loser

 

[Naeblis495]

i agree that a win is a win , no matter how it happened .

if you just outlasted in longevity , the characther is still dead and you are alive , that is a win in my book .

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So have we reached a conclusion?

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

I feel the majority are leaning for yes but double checking could be worth it. Dargoo did want to think about it a bit while hitting follow on the thread.

To my eyes, one dude dead and another alive is a win, plain and simple. Why is an advantage like longevity not applicable like any other? A match arranged to exploit this could be a stomp just as well if the dude that is gonna die in due time has literally no options but to wait for death anyway.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Imo, i like this idea. It would make Stamina feats, and Intellegience feats more relevant in vsthreads with less haxy characters (Or maybe some haxy ones)

I agree to it...

The thing about a "Win is a win".. I agree that it should count as a win for the opponent...

 

[DeathNoodles]

Bump