Gems Soulessness removal

[Ricsi-viragosi]

A person being able to soul hax something that does not traditionally have a soul is a feat for that persons soul hax, it does not mean we should remove soul resistance via canonically not having a soul from every character because of it

>via canonically not having a soul from every character because of it

Oh, if only this was actually discussed somewhere I linked...

But no, if someone is stated to have no soul by a reliable soul, tehy don't, period. When has that happened in SU tough?


>A person being able to soul hax something that does not traditionally have a soul is a feat for that persons soul hax

Again, missing the point. There is no good traditional way to say what has a soul and what doesn't. It entierly depends on the fictional verse. labeling SU characters as souless would mean that even verses that can soul hax a rock wouldn't be able to do that.

But SU lacks the proof that they are souless.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

@Ricsi
I do not half to read that thread as I'm not talking about vs debating. I'm simply asking how they are treated inverse!.

If they are treating as having no soul then we shouldn't assume they have one. Only if they are treated as such.

That doesn't matter here.

Also not how it works. If they do not have one in an absolute manner, as in, stated or showcased to not have one, then they don't. That isn't the case here.

We are not deciding if they have souls in canon, but giving them immunity without actual proof because of the lack of biology is not right.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Ricsi Simple, is it a living being? Then it has a soul. Is it am inanimate object/nonliving being (ie. ai, golems, rocks, etc.) then it does not unless explicitly shown or stated otherwise.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

@Ricsi Simple, is it an animate object/living being? Then it has a soul. Is it am inanimate object/nonbinding being (ie. ai, golems, rocks, etc.) then it does not unless explicitly shown or stated otherwise.

Not how it works. And at difference of you, I have actually participated in a thread made to specify this.

So unless you have a thread or something on this wiki to back that u p, that is your unfounded assumption against mine, exept mine was accepted and is actually reasonable when aplied to vs matches.

 

[FateAlbane]

Not sure how relevant this can be to one side or another of this discussion but according to Kep, if you hax something that is said to not have that something you are haxxing, then they should still have some form of it. He exemplified it in the Mindhax one.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

It doesn't really matter much here.

No soulhax is present in SU, so it changes nothing for that. After that, it really boils down to case by case on how it works like most abilities with no relation to real stuff.


Point being here, saying that only organic objecs can have soul is not an assumption that should be made unless the verse makes it clear that that's the thruth.

Since it's not the case here, the "If Garnet fought a Soul Eater character, she would have no soul. If she fought Sadie Kane, or any Riordanverse character, she would have." aplies

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah, if someone soulhax/mindhax another one without soul/mind then: a) the affected one actually has soul/mind; b) is not actually Soul/Mind Manipulation and rather something else; or the less likely c) Its a metaphysical power than manipulate the concept of what is mind/soul (although that is Essence/Concept Manipulation).

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

What about robots?

 

[Chartate101]

Its debatable if they have emotions, or hyper advanced mimics of emotion. I am strongly against the removal.

 

[Antoniofer]

What about robots?

By default they do not have soul nor mind, for more advanced that is its AI.

 

[FateAlbane]

@Ricsi That being said I also originally thought the standard for non-living/innorganical beings was Souless (or at least not a soul in the conventional sense).

But I could see myself agreeing that if they were up against people coming from a Verse where they can manipulate souls of non-living beings (or where these non-living/innorganicals are said to have souls), they would be treated as capable of being affected if they lacked "no soul" statements of their own.

It's more like the other verse would have a more complete version of Soul Manip that can affect more things, just like some verses have people that can mind/soul hax non-existents due to affecting minds on a more unconventional sense.

They aren't really mind/soulhaxxing "nothing", just showing that they can manipulate a more abstract equivalent of both.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

What about robots?

If the verse with robots says that they have no souls, GG, no souls.

If the verse doesn't confirm or deny it, it's case by case depending the oponent.

If the verse the oponent is from views only normal people as having souls, no soul.

If the verse views objects as having souls as well, then it works.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Its debatable if they have emotions, or hyper advanced mimics of emotion. I am strongly against the removal.

That's great, but you need to actually explain why.

There is no proof for ro against it, so the best thing to do is assume neither.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I've commented on that other thread

 

[FateAlbane]

@Ricsi Just to confirm this, you're saying by the logic you're presenting, Gems would be considered with souls against Riordanverse because beings there which are comparable to/share the same characteristics they have displayed can be soul manip'd or have a soul.

Whereas you're saying against SE they would have no soul since SE has no showing of inorganic beings having souls or soul manip that works on inorganics, correct?

Unless they have an statement and/or feat of being without souls to work universally, that is.

EDIT: Correcting typo.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

@Ricsi Just to confirm this, you're saying by the logic you're presenting, Gems would be considered with souls against Riordanverse because beings there which are comparable to/share the same characteristics they have displayed can be soul manip'd or have a soul.
Whereas you're saying against SE they would have no soul since SE has no showing of innorganic beings having souls or soul manip that works on innorganics, correct?

Unless they have an statement and/or feat of being without souls to work universally, that is.

Yes, this is what I am saying.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Ricsi Except that's not gems having souls, that's soulhax that works on traditionally soulless things

 

[Numbersguy]

Not quite AI, they do have emotions, consciousnes and subconsciousnes: although, don't think that alone makes them "alive", otherwise characters like the Iron Giant would also have a soul.
Is just me, but it sounds like Sadie Kane do not actually has Soul Manipulation if it soulhax the soulless.

There are robots who have been made to be able to emote and even dream tho, so that part of your argument is wrong.

https://www.iflscience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence-dreams/

https://www.theloop.ca/this-robot-has-real-feelings-and-were-terrified/

 

[FateAlbane]

@Ricsi If that is so, I see no problem with it.

What you're saying is practically the equivalent of "A verse with a more complete extent of what Soul Manip extends to can affect them because it has shown the capability of affecting similar beings/beings who share comparable characteristics."

Seems pretty fine to me.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

@Ricsi Except that's not gems having souls, that's soulhax that works on traditionally soulless things

Not sure how relevant this can be to one side or another of this discussion but according to Kep, if you hax something that is said to not have that something you are haxxing, then they should still have some form of it. He exemplified it in the Mindhax one.

There is no such thing as traditionally souless. Traditions about souls change depending locations, with some believing animals don't have em, while others saying every piece of furniture does.

You cannot set a standard about a non-real thing that exist in fiction only.

 

[Antoniofer]

@Numbers, so that is how the scientist waste the public money? such a lame indeed.

But no, no mater how advanced is the AI, there's no way to emulate real emotions (that in real life, although also apply to fiction unless stated otherwise).

 

[WeeklyBattles]

If I failed verse has soul hax that can soul hax inanimate objects then yes it would affect gems but that does not justify removing the fact that they don't have souls entirely bore dose it justify saying that ANY soulhax from ANY verse can affect them

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

@Numbers, so that is how the scientist waste the public money? such a lame indeed.
But no, no mater how advanced is the AI, there's no way to emulate real emotions (that in real life, although also apply to fiction unless stated otherwise).

That's actually untrue. the idea of making an AI capable of feeling is not that incredible or impossible. it's the "making them smarter then a newborn chihuahua" part that is eluding scientists.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

If I failed verse has soul hax that can soul hax inanimate objects then yes it would affect gems but that does not justify removing the fact that they don't have souls entirely bore dose it justify saying that ANY soulhax from ANY verse can affect them

It does justify removing it, because there is no way to say that the fact is true. A character being souless can only be added if it's a fact in-verse, because that means that no-one can soul-hax them, period.

ABut no, not every soulhax can affect them. As I repeated several times, something like Soul Eater would not affect them.

 

[Chartate101]

Even if true, it shouldn't be removed from the profile. If it depends on the matchup, thats on the side of the character. Their hax can effect traditionally immune beings. But why does that mean gems shouldn't have it on this website where the primary function is indexing?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Even if true, it shouldn't be removed from the profile. If it depends on the matchup, thats on the side of the character. Their hax can effect traditionally immune beings. But why does that mean gems shouldn't have it on this website where the primary function is indexing?

I just repeated the third time that there is no "traditional soul hax".

We do not add soulless to everything that isn't biological in nature unless the verse makes it clear because someone cannot be sure about that.

And no, if they keep the soulless thing on their profile, it cannot change between fights, because they don't loose an ability they have to verse equal.

 

[Numbersguy]

@Numbers, so that is how the scientist waste the public money? such a lame indeed.
But no, no mater how advanced is the AI, there's no way to emulate real emotions (that in real life, although also apply to fiction unless stated otherwise).

Antonio... are you trying to piss me off?

That is the future

 

[Numbersguy]

@Numbers, so that is how the scientist waste the public money? such a lame indeed.
But no, no mater how advanced is the AI, there's no way to emulate real emotions (that in real life, although also apply to fiction unless stated otherwise).

Antonio... are you trying to piss me off?

That is the future

 

[Antoniofer]

Not really (?), it just despite advanced technology scientist seems to use time and money to make stuff that no one needs; just imagine the hypotetical existential crisis than that could cause (not on me of course)...

But sorry If I was harsh about something, and also sorry for the delay of the thread.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Ricsi No, there are characters who exist in fiction who can soul hax soulless beings. A rewording may be in order but removing it entirely is not happening.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

No,a s Kep said, it's not soul hax then. Author intent be damned, we aren't letting sluggverse be above tier 0 no matter how much the author wanted it, same here.

You can at most say that they have no biological components, which actually counters bio and disease manipulation as well. You cannot confirm or deny them having a soul tough, that is not something that is known.

 

[FateAlbane]

Would it appease all if it was Reworded to something around the lines of "Cannot be affected by common means of Soul Manipulation, but should be susceptible to more unconventional ones such as those who can Manipulate the souls of inorganic beings or other inanimate ones"? It feels like a middle-ground to me and doesn't change the proposal of the thread or the way it's treated much.

Also the wording is just a draft for the general idea.

 

[FateAlbane]

Like, listing it as "Unconventional Resistance to Soul Manipulation". Would that be better?

It doesn't sound like immunity to all but is also not in the level of mere everyday resistance.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Again, common soul manipulaion isn't really a thing.

There is nothing about souls in the verse, and as such nothing about souls directly should be noted. Putting something like "lack biological structure, being made out of actual gems, and as such should be immune abilities that require such thing" would be better, since this encompasses a lot of soul hax, without generalizing it or anything.

 

[Antoniofer]

"[...]but should be susceptible to more unconventional ones such as those who can Manipulate the souls of inorganic beings or other inanimated ones", it still sounds like it manipulate souls and that's all (not all verses differentiate between different tyoes of souls, having that detail would be more of a weakness); still believing there isn't such a thing like soulhaxing the soullessness, if not another power whose sub-power is Soul Manipulation.

 

[FateAlbane]

@Antoniofer If a verse has inorganic beings with Souls and has shown the capability to manipulate them, while the opposing verse lacks a feat of "having no souls" to work universally for their own, it will work.

And it *is* Soul Hax. Just a more complete, advanced one that can affect more things than it usually does. Unlike your everyday Soul Manip that only has been shown to extend to the souls of living things/humans and such.

 

[Antoniofer]

It will work regardless of how is the power called, but the main issue is that it shouldn't be called Soul Manipulation to begin with.

 

[FateAlbane]

@Antoniofer It should.

In-verse, the power is shown to work on the souls of something that strays from what usually has Souls.

At this point if they fight a similar being, to them that being will have as much of a soul as the other inorganic one had. Because as things are for them, there's an actual soul there when it comes to inorganic beings that they can manipulate.

Their opponent would need an statement of their own to contradict that - thus proving that, unlike other inorganic beings from their home verse, they have no soul at all. If they don't, they aren't souless to all of fiction just because "they're inorganic". Many fictions don't see that as an impediment for the beings having souls.

However, many others do.

That's the point. Without an statement, whenever they go against a verse that doesn't have Souls or Soul Manip extending to inanimate objects, they will remain absolutely unnafected by their soul powers.

Likewise, whenever they go against a verse that *does* extend Soul Manip or existence of souls to inanimate objects, it will work.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Actually, the religious view is that only humans has souls.

Ah, THE religious view. The only one. I gotcha.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

"lack biological structure, being made out of actual gems, and as such should be immune abilities that require such thing"

Look, can we just change it to this? If the soul manip endorses the target being an animal or human, it get's nulled, plus this also involves other stuff as well.