Flumpty Bumpty Immortality Type 5?

[ShionAH]

"Uhh! He was joking! Why would flumpty go to a strip club!?"

 

[Shmooply]

Thread of all time.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

What does this have to do with type 5

 

[ShionAH]

Thread of all time.

An Egg going to a strip clup and dying and not dying and gaining Immortality Type 5.

A thread of all time

 

[ShionAH]

What does this have to do with type 5

He died in canon but he also didnt die in canon which means life and death dont really work on the egg

 

[ZillertheBucko]

He died in canon but he also didnt die in canon which means life and death dont really work on the egg

Wouldn’t that be more like acausality or something?

 

[ShionAH]

Wouldn’t that be more like acausality or something?

Maybe but maybe not. I asked this and most of the answers were Immortality 5 so

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Wouldn’t that be more like acausality or something?

To be noted: He's using "canon" very loosely. He's arguing that the character is revived because of an april fool's video. A literal joke from the creator.

 

[ShionAH]

To be noted: He's using "canon" very loosely. He's arguing that the character is revived because of an april fool's video. A literal joke from the creator.

Thats a completely different feat and has nothing to do with this feat. (The High-Godly) This one is just regular Flumpty feat "He died in canon but he also didn't die in canon"

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Thats a completely different feat. (The High-Godly one) This one is just regular Flumpty feat "He died in canon but he also didn't die in canon"

You're still using a joke video as proof here. Which even if we ignored the joke part, dubiously applicable to the game character. You would have to prove that any media made by the author (or at least, his YT shit) would be applicable for the game.

The fact that all of this comes from a discord statement, a joke video, from a meta post that doesn't seem to be backed in-game (else you would've shown that), makes it pretty clear.

 

[ShionAH]

You're still using a joke video as proof here. Which even if we ignored the joke part, dubiously applicable to the game character. You would have to prove that any media made by the author (or at least, his YT shit) would be applicable for the game.

The video was to show Flumptys personality.

The fact that all of this comes from a discord statement,

Not sure why a QnA is not enough

a joke video,

That shows his personality and considered to be canon and even has a profile.

from a meta post that doesn't seem to be backed in-game (else you would've shown that), makes it pretty clear.

Meta-Post? You mean the tweet? That has nothing to do with this feat

 

[Thelastmlg]

this was brought in this thread already and pretty much rejected, as i said, is too vague for anything as we don't know how that worked at all, could mean a fake out death or some weird ressurection system, could even be immortality type 7 if being a undead counts as alive, could be acausality, could be duplication, no information on it

 

[ShionAH]

could mean a fake out death

thats way too off.

or some weird ressurection system,

But he doesnt come back. He just dies and doesnt die

could even be immortality type 7 if being a undead counts as alive

Nah. He dies and also doesnt die at the same time. If it was Immortality 7 the wording would be soo different.

 

[Thelastmlg]

thats way too off.

But he doesnt come back. He just dies and doesnt die

Nah. He dies and also doesnt die at the same time. If it was Immortality 7 the wording would be soo different.

except we don't know how it worked at all, "dying but not dying" is too vague to warrant anything if we don't know how said feat even worked, and we are not gonna slap one power to it as speculation when others can be equally possible

yes, it can be a fake out death if he dies but actually doesn't, very common in fiction, yes, he can die and come back and thus never have truly died, and yes, he can die and be a undead because that wouldn't count as an actual death

are any of those applicable? no because again, we have no idea why or how he "died but never died", plus it probably wouldn't even be immortality type 5 because it requires death to not apply to him, even taking it as literal as possible, this is some causality shenanigans, so probably acausality type 4

 

[ShionAH]

except we don't know how it worked at all, "dying but not dying" is too vague to warrant anything if we don't know how said feat even worked, and we are not gonna slap one power to it as speculation when others can be equally possible

I disagree respectfully.

yes, it can be a fake out death if he dies but actually doesn't, very common in fiction, yes, he can die and come back and thus never have truly died, and yes, he can die and be a undead because that wouldn't count as an actual death

Faking out your death means you didn't die. But he did die.

are any of those applicable? no because again, we have no idea why or how he "died but never died", plus it probably wouldn't even be immortality type 5 because it requires death to not apply to him, even taking it as literal as possible, this is some causality shenanigans, so probably acausality type 4

He died in canon but also didn't die in canon. Thats basically immortality 5. (Question can a character have more than one acasuality type?)

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Being dead and not dead at the same is just some type of acausality

 

[Eden_Warlock99]

Flumpty already has Type 4 Acausality anyhow

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Rip thread then

 

[ShionAH]

. (Question can a character have more than one acasuality type?)

 

[Dragonite007]

Yes

 

[ShionAH]

What type of acasuality would this be?

 

[Thelastmlg]

type 4 probably, which he has already (even though the no origin thing sounds like type 2)

 

[Thelastmlg]

I disagree respectfully.

Faking out your death means you didn't die. But he did die.

He died in canon but also didn't die in canon. Thats basically immortality 5. (Question can a character have more than one acasuality type?)

okay

you can word a fake out death as dying but never having really dead, that depends on the verse's decision

wrong, immortality type 5 means he wouldn't be able to die to begin with, even if he never did, this has nothing to do with immortality type 5, this is either a simpler event worded purposely weird and comocally, or acausality type 4

 

[ShionAH]

type 4 probably, which he has already (even though the no origin thing sounds like type 2)

Hmm maybe type 2 and 4

okay

you can word a fake out death as dying but never having really dead, that depends on the verse's decision

Who the hell words it like that? Scream

wrong, immortality type 5 means he wouldn't be able to die to begin with, even if he never did, this has nothing to do with immortality type 5, this is either a simpler event worded purposely weird and comocally, or acausality type 4

So dying and not dying in the same story is?

 

[Thelastmlg]

Who the hell words it like that? Scream

So dying and not dying in the same story is?

verses word things weridly all the time, sometimes specifically to confuse the viewer, this is just a example anyway seeing as we have no info on what even happened besides a vague description.

is what? acausality? possible, if both things are truths it means his past has multiple truths which is type 4

 

[ShionAH]

verses word things weridly all the time, sometimes specifically to confuse the viewer, this is just a example anyway seeing as we have no info on what even happened besides a vague description.

I think its just acasuality 4 tbh. It makes sense as Flumpty already has it

 

[LordGriffin1000]

This one is an odd case. He stated he did die but also didn't. I'd argue a form of immortality via resurrection but it's just the way it's said makes it sound like something else.

I think its just acasuality 4 tbh. It makes sense as Flumpty already has it

That could be it.

 

[ShionAH]

This one is an odd case. He stated he did die but also didn't. I'd argue a form of immortality via resurrection but it's just the way it's said makes it sound like something else.


That could be it.

Alright I guess aca 4. What about this

 

[ShionAH]

Alright I guess aca 4. What about this

bump for that

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Alright I guess aca 4. What about this

This is something that potentially could grant him stuff but without an explination, we don't know how went about it.

For a random example, if we see the time start to rewind without an explination then we would assume Flumpty did it going off the authors statement but we wouldn't know if he did it with a snap of his finger or if he built a machine. Basically, he'd get potential abilities or something along those lines but the method in which he went about it would be unknown as it wasn't shown how.

 

[ShionAH]

This is something that potentially could grant him stuff but without an explination, we don't know how went about it.

For a random example, if we see the time start to rewind without an explination then we would assume Flumpty did it going off the authors statement but we wouldn't know if he did it with a snap of his finger or if he built a machine. Basically, he'd get potential abilities or something along those lines but the method in which he went about it would be unknown as it wasn't shown how.

I mean he messes with time in the game without any visible machine, would this grant him range since he can cause all the chaos thats everywhere in the universe?

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Sorry chief, you're my bro but this isn't the instance where I side with my homies.
I disagree based on the weird explanation and @Thelastmlg argument above.

 

[ShionAH]

Sorry chief, you're my bro but this isn't the instance where I side with my homies.
I disagree based on the weird explanation and @Thelastmlg argument above.

Oh yeah the immo 5 is already declined its just acasuality 4 I added it.

, would this grant him range since he can cause all the chaos thats everywhere in the universe?

whaa your opinion on this?

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

I mean he messes with time in the game without any visible machine, would this grant him range since he can cause all the chaos thats everywhere in the universe?

whaa your opinion on this?

Scan pls?

 

[ShionAH]

Alright I guess aca 4. What about this

This

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Huh. I honestly don't see how to name an ability based on that vague QnA.
What phenomenon he meant that fall under this: "If it doesn't have an explanation, Flumpty did it." ?

 

[ShionAH]

Huh. I honestly don't see how to name an ability based on that vague QnA.
What phenomenon he meant that fall under this: "If it doesn't have an explanation, Flumpty did it."

Anything in the universe can be explained by Flumpty and if theres no explanation then Flumpty did it.
Maybe Chaos Manip and Range? No idea

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Nah. I wouldn't give Flumpty a hax under the reasoning based on vague answer.

While I can see what the author is trying to say that "If some random-unexplained phenomena transpired in my universe, Flumpty is the cause," I'm not sure what random phenomena transpired in the universe, so while it seems like we can blame Flumpty for any unexplainablephenomenon, I don't know what [Unexplainable-Phenomenon] are in the verse.

Lord Griffin is giving a good example of it:

For a random example, if we see the time start to rewind without an explination then we would assume Flumpty did it going off the authors statement but we wouldn't know if he did it with a snap of his finger or if he built a machine. Basically, he'd get potential abilities or something along those lines but the method in which he went about it would be unknown as it wasn't shown how.

So without any clue on what fell under the [Unexplainable-Phenomenon] in the verse. I'm afraid there is no much we can go from this statement.

 

[ShionAH]

Nah. I wouldn't give Flumpty a hax under the reasoning based on vague answer.

While I can see what the author is trying to say that "If some random-unexplained phenomena transpired in my universe, Flumpty is the cause," I'm not sure what random phenomena transpired in the universe, so while it seems like we can blame Flumpty for any unexplainablephenomenon, I don't know what [Unexplainable-Phenomenon] are in the verse.

Lord Griffin is giving a good example of it:


So without any clue on what fell under the [Unexplainable-Phenomenon] in the verse. I'm afraid there is no much we can go from this statement.

Theres a lot of stuff I can list that happens and actually this statement is supported by the game.

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Theres a lot of stuff I can list that happens and actually this statement is supported by the game.

Oh? Maybe make another crt about tht since this one premise already get rejected (?)