God of war | Kratos's immortality Negation section.

[Pepsimanslover_69]

So all of the novels content should be unusable towards scaling this verse if it can so easily be discarded.

How did you get that.... The novels are secondary canon i.e only non-contradicted showings can be used. That's how tiers of Canon work.

 

[Lou_change]

The scan pretty heavily implies that the curse was responsible for their ressurection, and it's in character for Zeus to force curse based immortality on people, as he did it to Prometheus and Pandora's first seeker.

I mean yeah the legionaries are pretty explicitly cursed they also already have type 2, 7, and presumably 1. Type 4 is definitely possible in that case but Promethus was cursed with mortality and seemingly believed that the fires of Olympus was the only way for him to die which is interesting assuming he had the foresight he is named for. I also would love further context on your second example. But why would he be negating both the type 4 and the type 8, I mean if he negates the type 4, the type 8 can't resurrect them, and if he negates type 8 they are no longer immortal and won't resurrect.

That isn't negating any form of immortality.

You know, that is an excellent point

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

But why would he be negating both the type 4 and the type 8, I mean if he negates the type 4, the type 8 can't resurrect them, and if he negates type 8 they are no longer immortal and won't resurrect.

That's just how I saw pages index immortality Negation. I never really questioned the logic of it.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Lou_change Not exactly how immortality type 4 and 8 negation works, the former you just have them incapable of resurrecting easily, and the latter is just saying no to the thing that keeps them alive in the first place. In this context being cursed to live for eternity and resurrecting are both being negated by Kratos.

 

[Rutæhh]

agree with Immo negation. Kratos kills undead being and they dont come back pretty simple

 

[Lou_change]

In this context being cursed to live for eternity and resurrecting are both being negated by Kratos.

If that is not because type4 then he doesn't exactly need to negate type 1 or 7

 

[Theglassman12]

Type 1 would just be for rendering someone to be mortal. 7 you can still bypass if the things they can easily shrug off due to their undead nature they just die all of a sudden by the character.

 

[Borutonarutodebunked]

Demigod Kratos's immortality Negation should look like this, Immortality Negation (Type 2; Can easily kill Undead Legionnaires by slashing their chest, bashing their heads and even tearing them into two, despite a Legionnaire's ability to survive fatal wounds such as a arrow piercing their skull and being torn into two. Type 4; Can even kill the eternally ressurecting Legionnaires. Type 7; Legionnaires are undead creatures. Type 8; The infamous ressurecting Legionnaires had their immortality as a byproduct of a curse bestowed by Zeus himself.)

God Kratos, Enhanced Immortality Negation (Type 2; Evolved to kill Cursed Remains by tearing them into two and decapitation, despite their ability to survive as disconnected skeleton parts. Type 3 & 4; High-Mid; Cursed Remains are able to regenerate from being broken into pieces of separated bone, allowing them to re-animate themselves. Type 6; His Norse self, who's his Demigod self with godly powers, is able to nullify a Nightmare's possession via stunning, which grants it's victim immortality and enhanced strength. He can even kill the victim despite their immortality.)

TL;DR​

• Type 3 and 6 gets moved to Kratos's God key.
• Type 8 gets added to his Demigod self.
• Cursed Remains and Undead Legionnaires are counterparts of each other, but are very different.

"Kratos has also shown to be able to kill Legionnaires who have been cursed by Zeus to constantly resurrect ( Type 4 & 8), and yeah, Kratos just kills them, there's no mechanism he uses, he just kills them."

Within the same novel (gow 2 novel) has this feat you are using, he had to crush skeletons warriors bones to dust to stop them from re-forming, which directly contradicts what you are presenting above, that he has type 8 immortality negation. And you did later on admit that with contradiction with the primary source material the novel which is considered a secondary source should be discarded.

"Cursed Remains
Cursed Remains are counterparts to the Legionnaires, albeit very different. They're more skeleton like, and they usually survive as displaced skeleton parts(and are they are alive in those states for those who are skeptical) (Type 2), they can restore and ressurect themselves from pieces of broken bones(Type 3 & 4) and are far more rarer than your common Legionnaires."

For the part with the cursed remains that they can be restore/resurrect, the evidence you provided states that it is forced that they come back eternality , and it mentions that the chain blades can break them into pieces but not negate their immortality as it also mention Kratos needs to finish them off so that they cannot be resurrected. So, as the evidence you provided says, they just have threshold to which they cannot be come back. No ability is depicted that would proves the power to negate a character immortality.

"Now, has Kratos negged their immortality? Somewhat.
We are shown In God of war Ghost Of Sparta, Kratos needs to freeze or overpower their regeneration, he can't really do anything to them at this point in the series."

In the evidence you provided, kratos can't even negate their immortality by throwing them (as they are shown to reform back ), or even using the chain weapon, he has to use the horn of boreas ice storm to freeze them and then he shatters them beyond the state they can be reformed. He does not negate any form of immortality.

"In God Of War II, Kratos can somewhat nullify their immortality, as he can dismantle them to end their life. Credits to omegabronic for pointing this out."

In the evidence presented, the skeletons are not shown to reform back, as they are shattered into smaller pieces unlike other evidence presented above. This proves enough trauma can simply stop them from reforming (if they do or proven in that game to do so) not that they any immortality was actually negated. Aetheric Pariah provided evidence were, kratos simply killed those enemies with no such things or mention of immortality negation.

" In God Of War III, he can kill them by tearing them into two or by decapitation, stuff they should survive considering their ability to continue to survive as disconnected skeleton parts and just their broken regeneration."

In the evidence you provided above, that enemy is not shown to regenerate or reform, and as the evidence depicts it, they simply die/or cant come back from enough physical damage.

"Nightmares are capable of possession which increases their victims strength and grants immortality, Kratos being able to remove their possession by stunning the victim and can even kill the victim despite their granted immortality."

The evidence you provided proves that there nightmares can indeed possess others and make them stronger, but within the same evidence you gave, it mentions that stunning/killing an enemies possesses by nightmares will drive the nightmares away. In the evidence you shown that they are immortal, nothing ever proves that those enemies possess by those nightmares needs their immortality to be negated, they are simply killed regularly. We can clearly see that their health bare can regenerate, and kratos needs to constantly damage them faster then they can regenerate to kill those that are possesses by a nightmare. This doesn't require any form of type 6 immortality negation.

With the evidence presented, kratos does not possess any form of immortality negation mentioned.

 

[DaReaperMan]

If the primary source for a media says something, everything else bends the knee to it, and all contradictions will be ignored. In this case, the games are primary sources, books are secondary sources, everything else is a tertiary source. So the novel can say Kratos gets all the bitches on the planet, if the games contradict that, it's unusable.

 

[Deagonx]

I think this should probably be closed? Again, I have no particular issue with Kratos' justifications being updated to reflect the full body of evidence being used for them, which is what this thread is proposing. If the supporters believe the version of the justification in the OP more accurately reflects the reasoning used that's fine. But this was framed as a sort of pre-empting of a downgrade, but these negations will still be a part of the series of threads.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

why'd you post this twice

I'd be fine with just updating the profile and then saving the downgrades for another day. As much as I'd like to avoid having to make yet another thread, the fact of the matter is, this thread isn't going anywhere so it's better to just save the debate for later.

 

[Deagonx]

why'd you post this twice

No idea why that happened lol

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Within the same novel (gow 2 novel) has this feat you are using, he had to crush skeletons warriors bones to dust to stop them from re-forming, which directly contradicts what you are presenting above, that he has type 8 immortality negation. And you did later on admit that with contradiction with the primary source material the novel which is considered a secondary source should be discarded.

There's no direct confirmation on why Cursed Remains are immortal, and there has been no evidence so far to suggest they have Type 8.

For the part with the cursed remains that they can be restore/resurrect, the evidence you provided states that it is forced that they come back eternality , and it mentions that the chain blades can break them into pieces but not negate their immortality as it also mention Kratos needs to finish them off so that they cannot be resurrected. So, as the evidence you provided says, they just have threshold to which they cannot be come back. No ability is depicted that would proves the power to negate a character immortality.

The finish off part, when parried with the game's context, just means that if Kratos leaves them alone, they regenerate, if he decides to confront them, they die.

In the evidence you provided, kratos can't even negate their immortality by throwing them (as they are shown to reform back ), or even using the chain weapon, he has to use the horn of boreas ice storm to freeze them and then he shatters them beyond the state they can be reformed. He does not negate any form of immortality.

That's the point... each game here showcases how Kratos evolved when dealing with the Cursed Remains.

In the evidence presented, the skeletons are not shown to reform back, as they are shattered into smaller pieces unlike other evidence presented above. This proves enough trauma can simply stop them from reforming (if they do or proven in that game to do so) not that they any immortality was actually negated. Aetheric Pariah provided evidence were, kratos simply killed those enemies with no such things or mention of immortality negation.

It's shown pretty clearly that they are not shattered to smaller pieces, regardless, they can regenerate from that level of damage.

In the evidence you provided above, that enemy is not shown to regenerate or reform, and as the evidence depicts it, they simply die/or cant come back from enough physical damage.

And in what way is this enough damage? This level of damage is far less then what it's needed to kill them, and Kratos doesn't even do any prior damage, so claims of weird damage threshold can't be used.

The evidence you provided proves that there nightmares can indeed possess others and make them stronger, but within the same evidence you gave, it mentions that stunning/killing an enemies possesses by nightmares will drive the nightmares away

Yeah, that's the point. Kratos can stun another being's mind to remove the possession-like immortality that Nightmares have.

 

[Borutonarutodebunked]

There's no direct confirmation on why Cursed Remains are immortal, and there has been no evidence so far to suggest they have Type 8.

The finish off part, when parried with the game's context, just means that if Kratos leaves them alone, they regenerate, if he decides to confront them, they die.

That's the point... each game here showcases how Kratos evolved when dealing with the Cursed Remains.

It's shown pretty clearly that they are not shattered to smaller pieces, regardless, they can regenerate from that level of damage.

And in what way is this enough damage? This level of damage is far less then what it's needed to kill them, and Kratos doesn't even do any prior damage, so claims of weird damage threshold can't be used.

Yeah, that's the point. Kratos can stun another being's mind to remove the possession-like immortality that Nightmares have.

"There's no direct confirmation on why Cursed Remains are immortal, and there has been no evidence so far to suggest they have Type 8."

In the evidence I provided and the one you provided, he never negates any immortality via anything. Brute force is enough to stop them from reforming. Type 4&8 immortality aren't applied.

"The finish off part, when parried with the game's context, just means that if Kratos leaves them alone, they regenerate, if he decides to confront them, they die."

The evidence you provided proves he does not have any immortality negation very simple. Doesn't matter if he lets them alone or not. Enough physical trauma will make it impossible to re-form.

"That's the point... each game here showcases how Kratos evolved when dealing with the Cursed Remains."

That is not evidence for any form of immortality regeneration, makes no logical sense. You literally commented under and i quote "Now, has Kratos negged their immortality? Somewhat." If you intended to use this as an example to prove that kratos "somewhat" negates their "immortality" than you are incorrect.

"It's shown pretty clearly that they are not shattered to smaller pieces, regardless, they can regenerate from that level of damage"

In that evidence you provided, they do not reform/resurrect when killed, unlike other pieces of evidence presented above, therefor their "immortality" you are trying to prove is never proven or shown inside the game itself. Thus they can simply be killed via enough physical trauma.

"And in what way is this enough damage? This level of damage is far less then what it's needed to kill them, and Kratos doesn't even do any prior damage, so claims of weird damage threshold can't be used."

Because the evidence you gave, show the enemy simply dying from physical trauma, if they had unstoppable regeneration, this would be irrelevant. Their is no "weird claim of threshold damage here" , their immortality are limited, enough physical trauma that Kratos applies is proven and shown to kill them. Anything else, is your assumption, I'm talking the evidence as it is presented.

"Yeah, that's the point. Kratos can stun another being's mind to remove the possession-like immortality that Nightmares have."

What ? Are are you trying to prove then ? If you are using this to prove immortality negation to Norse kratos, I literally address that above, your own evidence show's that their health bar can regenerate but kratos needs to constantly damage them faster than they can regenerate to kill them. That needs not any form of immortality negation.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

In the evidence I provided and the one you provided, he never negates any immortality via anything. Brute force is enough to stop them from reforming. Type 4&8 immortality aren't applied.

Saying he never negates anything is not a counter nor a refutation. It's a claim you made on the misunderstanding that the Cursed Remains were the reason for type 4&8.

Unless you can give a reason why Kratos isn't negging anything, your argument is nothing more then a claim.

That is not evidence for any form of immortality regeneration, makes no logical sense. You literally commented under and i quote "Now, has Kratos negged their immortality? Somewhat."

Taking my statements out of context won't help you, as I make it clear that Kratos's ability to kill them in the games evolves chronologically.

Now, has Kratos negged their immortality? Somewhat.

We are shown In God of war Ghost Of Sparta, Kratos needs to freeze or overpower their regeneration, he can't really do anything to them at this point in the series.

In God Of War II, Kratos can somewhat nullify their immortality, as he can dismantle them to end their life. Credits to omegabronic for pointing this out.

In God Of War III, he can kill them by tearing them into two or by decapitation, stuff they should survive considering their ability to continue to survive as disconnected skeleton parts and just their broken regeneration.

All of the above showcases Kratos's ability to evolve against the Cursed Remains, albeit it's very minor considering the dozen encounters with them.

Kratos evolved to where he can kill them in any he wants where before he can't.

If you intended to use this as an example to prove that kratos "somewhat" negates their "immortality" than you are incorrect.

Addressed mostly by the above, but that piece of information was used to showcase that in his first meeting with them, Kratos is unable to nullify their immortality.

Because the evidence you gave, show the enemy simply dying from physical trauma, if they had unstoppable regeneration, this would be irrelevant. Their is no "weird claim of threshold damage here" , their immortality are limited, enough physical trauma that Kratos applies is proven and shown to kill them. Anything else, is your assumption, I'm talking the evidence as it is presented.

Nothing burger.

Most of this is taking about how Kratos kills them by physical trauma is somehow a showcase that their immortality is limited in such a way, however, not only does this conveniently ignore the previous showcases of their immortality, where it's shown that it clearly isn't enough to kill them, but it forgets that this only happens when Kratos kills them.

In that evidence you provided, they do not reform/resurrect when killed,

when done by Kratos.

unlike other pieces of evidence presented above,

So you admit that they can ressurect and regenerate unless Kratos kills them? Thanks.

therefor their "immortality" you are trying to prove is never proven or shown inside the game itself.

Doesn't matter. Statements from the Guidebooks can be used as long they aren't contradicted.

And I don't see how you can come to that abysmal conclusion when you yourself admit that there are evidence of such immortality showcased.

Thus they can simply be killed via enough physical trauma.

When you ignore everything & take things out of context? Sure.

Also, stop using the word "physical trauma" it's way too board to actually describe the amount of damage, and can easily be a way for people to misunderstand your points.

"What ? Are are you trying to prove then ? If you are using this to prove immortality negation to Norse kratos, I literally address that above, your own evidence show's that their health bar can regenerate but kratos needs to constantly damage them faster than they can regenerate to kill them. That needs not any form of immortality negation."

This is just a misunderstanding on how Type 6 immortality works,
6: Parasitic: The character is able to attain a sort of immortality by abandoning bodies whenever necessary to transfer their consciousness to another body, whether they are possessing someone else or switching to a backup body.
Considering that Kratos Is nullifying the possession-like immortality by stunning the victims mind, it can be considered as evidence for type 6. Although, this could be viewed as simple limitations to their possession.

 

[Borutonarutodebunked]

Saying he never negates anything is not a counter nor a refutation. It's a claim you made on the misunderstanding that the Cursed Remains were the reason for type 4&8.

Unless you can give a reason why Kratos isn't negging anything, your argument is nothing more then a claim.

Taking my statements out of context won't help you, as I make it clear that Kratos's ability to kill them in the games evolves chronologically.

Kratos evolved to where he can kill them in any he wants where before he can't.

Addressed mostly by the above, but that piece of information was used to showcase that in his first meeting with them, Kratos is unable to nullify their immortality.

Nothing burger.

Most of this is taking about how Kratos kills them by physical trauma is somehow a showcase that their immortality is limited in such a way, however, not only does this conveniently ignore the previous showcases of their immortality, where it's shown that it clearly isn't enough to kill them, but it forgets that this only happens when Kratos kills them.


when done by Kratos.

So you admit that they can ressurect and regenerate unless Kratos kills them? Thanks.

Doesn't matter. Statements from the Guidebooks can be used as long they aren't contradicted.

And I don't see how you can come to that abysmal conclusion when you yourself admit that there are evidence of such immortality showcased.

When you ignore everything & take things out of context? Sure.

Also, stop using the word "physical trauma" it's way too board to actually describe the amount of damage, and can easily be a way for people to misunderstand your points.

"What ? Are are you trying to prove then ? If you are using this to prove immortality negation to Norse kratos, I literally address that above, your own evidence show's that their health bar can regenerate but kratos needs to constantly damage them faster than they can regenerate to kill them. That needs not any form of immortality negation."

This is just a misunderstanding on how Type 6 immortality works,
6: Parasitic: The character is able to attain a sort of immortality by abandoning bodies whenever necessary to transfer their consciousness to another body, whether they are possessing someone else or switching to a backup body.
Considering that Kratos Is nullifying the possession-like immortality by stunning the victims mind, it can be considered as evidence for type 6. Although, this could be viewed as simple limitations to their possession.

"Saying he never negates anything is not a counter nor a refutation. It's a claim you made on the misunderstanding that the Cursed Remains were the reason for type 4&8. Unless you can give a reason why Kratos isn't negging anything, your argument is nothing more then a claim."

It is proven with the evidence that I have provided and with the "evidence" that you use to give immortality negation to kratos that he doesn't not have those abilities. I already addressed. The "evidence" you give does not prove your claim, let me debunk it again. In the same novel you use to try and give immortality negation 4&8 to kratos, he must turn the bones of skeletons to dust as they keep re-forming. The evidence that you gave, doesn't show them regenerating from anything, simple decapitation is enough, they are not proven to regenerate. You are making illogical claims that is never proven, kratos doesn't need immortality negation to beat none of enemies, he failed. He isn't "negging" anything. You are the one assuming an ability that isn't there.

"Taking my statements out of context won't help you, as I make it clear that Kratos's ability to kill them in the games evolves chronologically."

Do not be concern about me, be concern about your claims that are base on nothing but headcanon. The fact that Ghost of sparta kratos., THE GOD OF WAR cannot even "negate their immortality" and can only bypass that by turning them into ice and shattering them proves he has ZERO immortality negation.

"Kratos evolved to where he can kill them in any he wants where before he can't."

You linked a comment thread about yourself that I already addressed and above. The ghost of sparta one is debunked, even god kratos cannot negate immortality, but somehow he "evolves" as a letter of himself to "bypass immortality".

"Now, has Kratos negged their immortality? Somewhat.
We are shown In God of war Ghost Of Sparta, Kratos needs to freeze or overpower their regeneration, he can't really do anything to them at this point in the series."

In the evidence you provided, kratos can't even negate their immortality by throwing them (as they are shown to reform back ), or even using the chain weapon, he has to use the horn of boreas ice storm to freeze them and then he shatters them beyond the state they can be reformed. He does not negate any form of immortality.
"In God Of War II, Kratos can somewhat nullify their immortality, as he can dismantle them to end their life. Credits to omegabronic for pointing this out."

In the evidence presented, the skeletons are not shown to reform back, as they are shattered into smaller pieces unlike other evidence presented above. This proves enough trauma can simply stop them from reforming (if they do or proven in that game to do so) not that they any immortality was actually negated. Aetheric Pariah provided evidence were, kratos simply killed those enemies with no such things or mention of immortality negation.

" In God Of War III, he can kill them by tearing them into two or by decapitation, stuff they should survive considering their ability to continue to survive as disconnected skeleton parts and just their broken regeneration."

In the evidence you provided above, that enemy is not shown to regenerate or reform, and as the evidence depicts it, they simply die/or cant come back from enough physical damage.

The gow3 example is even more fraudulent, the enemy for most isn't first shown or proven to have regeneration, this unlike the ghost of sparta, or even my novel evidence.

"Addressed mostly by the above, but that piece of information was used to showcase that in his first meeting with them, Kratos is unable to nullify their immortality."

He doesn't suddenly gain something later he never had, nor proven or stated to have. That example alone should debunk any immortality regeneration for Kratos.

"Nothing burger.
Most of this is taking about how Kratos kills them by physical trauma is somehow a showcase that their immortality is limited in such a way, however, not only does this conveniently ignore the previous showcases of their immortality, where it's shown that it clearly isn't enough to kill them, but it forgets that this only happens when Kratos kills them."

Absolutely, if they truly had unstoppable regeneration, not only they would always regenerate their body parts, and simply decapitation or dismemberment would be useless. It doesn't ignore their previous showcase of immortality. You do not need immortality negation to inflict damage beyond some's capacity to reform. He did that with the skeletons that are actually shown to reform with ice manipulation. For example, enough physical trauma can easily bypass immortality 1-4, You can survive lethal wounds that would kill regular humans like an arrow in your skull, how about crushing said head or decapitate it ? You can somewhat regenerate, what is they crush to so many tiny piece they cannot reform even if they can resurrect. It only happens with kratos because he his show to have the physically to inflict the physical damage necessary to renter their immortality useless. In gow 3, even random smash attacks from cyclops can easly kill olympian sentry that could possibly have immortality 1&2 given their similarities to other skeletons/cursed remains enemies.

"when done by Kratos."

No, you have show the evidence in the game, that they can regenerate or proof of their type immortality "IN GAME".

"So you admit that they can ressurect and regenerate unless Kratos kills them? Thanks."

I never said such, do not utter words that I never even hinted at. When I said other example, I meant ether, in the game showing of some skeleton in ghost of Sparta needing to freeze to be killed, or my novel example were they are stated and shown to reform and kratos must resort to crush them to dust (god of war 2 kratos). The cursed remain guide book evidence you gave, states kratos must "finish them off" that even he cant negate their immortality by shattering them with his chained sword, that only proves my point, shatter them enough, they cannot reform, you do not need immortality negation for that, that is so illogical.

"Doesn't matter. Statements from the Guidebooks can be used as long they aren't contradicted.
And I don't see how you can come to that abysmal conclusion when you yourself admit that there are evidence of such immortality showcased."

No, it matters, their immortality must be proven in the game itself. You cannot make baseless claims by supposing they all have their "forms" of immortality. Your ability to judge are beyond pathetic, the immortality that some may have, doesn't actually require immortality negation to end it, simply bypassing the limit of what they can take was show case many times to be enough to do the job. Be it crush to dust or freeze and then shattered, does the job.

"When you ignore everything & take things out of context? Sure.
Also, stop using the word "physical trauma" it's way too board to actually describe the amount of damage, and can easily be a way for people to misunderstand your points."

The "evidences" you gave for kratos "negating their immortality" is simply applying enough physical trauma, just like you would be able to deal with it normally. And I will not stop using that word, it convey the evidence based message I want to say.

"This is just a misunderstanding on how Type 6 immortality works,
6: Parasitic: The character is able to attain a sort of immortality by abandoning bodies whenever necessary to transfer their consciousness to another body, whether they are possessing someone else or switching to a backup body.
Considering that Kratos Is nullifying the possession-like immortality by stunning the victims mind, it can be considered as evidence for type 6. Although, this could be viewed as simple limitations to their possession."

You have to misunderstand how immortality type 6 negation works to make such claim. He is not nullifying anything, YOU DO NOT NEED ANY FORM OF IMMORTALITY NEGATION TO SIMPLY FORCE A NIGHTMARE OUT OF A BODY illogical. Again, with the evidence you gave for that, you literally only need to inflict enough damage to drive the nightmare away. YOU ARE NOT NEGATING THEIR IMMORTALITY. Their health bar heals and if kratos spams enough physical attacks faster than they can regen, they simply die...

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

It is proven with the evidence that I have provided

The evidence you provided is a secondary contradicted statement. It's unusable, bury it.

The "evidence" you give does not prove your claim, let me debunk it again. In the same novel you use to try and give immortality negation 4&8 to kratos, he must turn the bones of skeletons to dust as they keep re-forming. The evidence that you gave, doesn't show them regenerating from anything, simple decapitation is enough, they are not proven to regenerate.

And? His type 4&8 come from the Legionnaires, not the Cursed Remains.

And stop with the statement, it's non-canon.

Do not be concern about me, be concern about your claims that are base on nothing but headcanon

Calling something with three pieces of evidence as head canon is just weird.

The fact that Ghost of sparta kratos., THE GOD OF WAR cannot even "negate their immortality" and can only bypass that by turning them into ice and shattering them proves he has ZERO immortality negation.

And? That's the point, this is his first encounter with them, he didn't evolve to nullify their immortality. The fact that he later gains the ability to nullify it is not contradictory.

You linked a comment thread about yourself that I already addressed and above.

You didn't. You took what I said out of context and misconstrued everything I said, that's not addressing arguments, that's just a strawman.

He doesn't suddenly gain something later he never had, nor proven or stated to have.

Lol, do you know what the word gain means? It means to get something you didn't have before.

The fact that he didn't have it doesn't contradict that he can gain it.

Absolutely, if they truly had unstoppable regeneration, not only they would always regenerate their body parts, and simply decapitation or dismemberment would be useless

Unless done by a character with Immortality negation.

It doesn't ignore their previous showcase of immortality. You do not need immortality negation to inflict damage beyond some's capacity to reform.

True, but the only case of this happening here is in God of war Ghost of Sparta, other then that, he usually kills them without overpowering their immortality.

He did that with the skeletons that are actually shown to reform with ice manipulation.

In his first encounter with them, in every other, he doesn't need to overpower it nor overcome it.

For example, enough physical trauma can easily bypass immortality 1-4, You can survive lethal wounds that would kill regular humans like an arrow in your skull, how about crushing said head or decapite it ? You can somewhat regenerate, what is they crush to so many tiny piece they cannot reform even if they can resurrect. It only happends with kratos because he his show to have the physicaly to inflict the physical damage necessary to renter their immortality useless. In gow 3, even random smash attacks from cyclops can easly kill olympian sentry that could possibly have immortality 1&2 given their similarities to other skeletons/cursed remains enemies.

Mostly addressed by the above, and another a nothing burger.

No, it matters, their immortality must be proven in the game itself.

Where's this standard? Oh yeah, it doesn't exist.

Evidence from secondary canon can be used as long as it isn't contradicted. Suck it up.

that they can regenerate or proof of their type immortality "IN GAME".

Already provided.

I never said such, do not utter words that I never even hinted at.

You very much did.

In that evidence you provided, they do not reform/resurrect when killed, unlike other pieces of evidence presented above

Saying that they didn't ressurect when killed by Kratos despite their ability to do so is just agreeing with me. But I'll humor you,

When I said other example, I meant etheir, in the game showing of some skeleton in ghost of sparta needing to freezed to be killed, or my novel example were they are stated and shown to reform and kratos must resort to crush them to dust (god of war 2 kratos).

Already addressed.

The cursed remain guide book evidence you gave, states kratos must "finish them off" that even he cant negate their immortality by shattering them with his chained sword, that only proves my point, shatter them enought, they cannot reform, you do not need immortality negation for that, that is so illogical.

It doesn't prove your point as your ignoring the game itself.

Finishing them refers to Kratos not leaving them alone while they are stunned, and guess how he kills them? By dismantling them.

You cannot make baseless claims by supposing they all have their "forms" of immortality.

It's not baseless when it has statement backing it. That's the opposite of baseless...

Your ability to judge are beyond pathetic

Thanks.

the immortality that some may have, doesn't actually require immortality negation to end it, simply bypassing the limit of what they can take was show case many times to be enough to do the job. Be it crush to dust or freeze and then shattered, does the job.

Already addressed.

The "evidences" you gave for kratos "negating their immortality" is simply applying enough physical trauma

Not.

And I will not stop using that word, it convey the evidence based message I want to say.

It doesn't. If I gave 3 slaps to someone and someone gave a beating to another person, your only way of describing what they did is simply saying they inflicted different levels of physical trauma. It isn’t a way of convey something, it's a way to hide it.

You have to misunderstand how immortality type 6 negation works to make such claim. He is not nullifying anything, YOU DO NOT NEED ANY FORM OF IMMORTALITY NEGATION TO SIMPLY FORCE A NIGHTMARE OUT OF A BODY

He's removing a parasites mind from the body, that can qualify for Type 6 negation.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Do not be concern about me, be concern about your claims that are base on nothing but headcanon. The fact that Ghost of sparta kratos., THE GOD OF WAR cannot even "negate their immortality" and can only bypass that by turning them into ice and shattering them proves he has ZERO immortality negation.

Kratos doesn't need to turn them into ice to kill them.

 

[Borutonarutodebunked]

The evidence you provided is a secondary contradicted statement. It's unusable, bury it.

And? His type 4&8 come from the Legionnaires, not the Cursed Remains.

And stop with the statement, it's non-canon.

Calling something with three pieces of evidence as head canon is just weird.

And? That's the point, this is his first encounter with them, he didn't evolve to nullify their immortality. The fact that he later gains the ability to nullify it is not contradictory.

You didn't. You took what I said out of context and misconstrued everything I said, that's not addressing arguments, that's just a strawman.

Lol, do you know what the word gain means? It means to get something you didn't have before.

The fact that he didn't have it doesn't contradict that he can gain it.

Unless done by a character with Immortality negation.

True, but the only case of this happening here is in God of war Ghost of Sparta, other then that, he usually kills them without overpowering their immortality.

In his first encounter with them, in every other, he doesn't need to overpower it nor overcome it.

Mostly addressed by the above, and another a nothing burger.

Where's this standard? Oh yeah, it doesn't exist.

Evidence from secondary canon can be used as long as it isn't contradicted. Suck it up.

Already provided.

You very much did.

Saying that they didn't ressurect when killed by Kratos despite their ability to do so is just agreeing with me. But I'll humor you,

Already addressed.

It doesn't prove your point as your ignoring the game itself.

Finishing them refers to Kratos not leaving them alone while they are stunned, and guess how he kills them? By dismantling them.

It's not baseless when it has statement backing it. That's the opposite of baseless...

Thanks.

Already addressed.

Not.

It doesn't. If I gave 3 slaps to someone and someone gave a beating to another person, your only way of describing what they did is simply saying they inflicted different levels of physical trauma. It isn’t a way of convey something, it's a way to hide it.

He's removing a parasites mind from the body, that can qualify for Type 6 negation.

"The evidence you provided is a secondary contradicted statement. It's unusable, bury it."
"And stop with the statement, it's non-canon."

It is not unusable, secondary connon or not, it shows how kratos would deal with such enemies without taking gameplay mechanics into to question, simply saying it's secondary contradiction doesn't prove your argument. Going with that you do not get to cheery picks statements/feats in the novel when it suits you and disregard the novel when you do not like.

"And? His type 4&8 come from the Legionnaires, not the Cursed Remains"

Still not immortality negation, the novel makes it clear he cant even bypass any immortality, crushing bones to do dust/ inflicting physical trauma does the job.

"Calling something with three pieces of evidence as head canon is just weird."

The "evidence" you give doesn't prove your claim of immortality negation. The evidence you give proves physical trauma is more than enough to deal with those goons.

"And? That's the point, this is his first encounter with them, he didn't evolve to nullify their immortality. The fact that he later gains the ability to nullify it is not contradictory."

He doesn't evolve, he doesn't gain any ability to negate any immortality. There is zero evidence that states he evolve to do such.

"You didn't. You took what I said out of context and misconstrued everything I said, that's not addressing arguments, that's just a strawman."

No it clearly was addressed and debunked, this is ad nauseam.

"Lol, do you know what the word gain means? It means to get something you didn't have before."

It was never stated or shown for it to have, he doesn't gets ability he was never proven to have. In game when kratos gets new powers it's always shown and stated. He failed to negate some goons immortality with his bare equipment, using ice manipulation as the Ghost of Sparta, were he should be far stronger as a god than even later games except his "hope" state.

"Unless done by a character with Immortality negation."

Unless the enemy in question, does not show the regeneration in question. It's easy to inflict physical damage beyond a character's capacity to reformed from.

"True, but the only case of this happening here is in God of war Ghost of Sparta, other then that, he usually kills them without overpowering their immortality."

He kills them by inflicting physical damage, just like how you would kill any regular enemy, without the need to NEGATE any form of immortality powers.

"In his first encounter with them, in every other, he doesn't need to overpower it nor overcome it."

Because those skeletons immortality are shown and proven, in other games what we see is that kratos kills them with physical trauma they cannot reform from, nothing else, i am taking the evidence as it is presented, i am not assuming he his using a fake ability to do something else.

"Mostly addressed by the above."

You didn't address anything, every evidence you gave doesn't not prove your claim for immortality negation, even random fodders cyclops can beat Olympian sentry enemies, I guess he has immortality negation because he can cause enough physical damage to bypass their immortality.

"You very much did."
PROVE IT!

I never said such, do not utter words that I never even hinted at. When I said other example, I meant ether, in the game showing of some skeleton in ghost of Sparta needing to freeze to be killed, or my novel example were they are stated and shown to reform and kratos must resort to crush them to dust (god of war 2 kratos). The cursed remain guide book evidence you gave, states kratos must "finish them off" that even he cant negate their immortality by shattering them with his chained sword, that only proves my point, shatter them enough, they cannot reform, you do not need immortality negation for that, that is so illogical.

"Saying that they didn't ressurect when killed by Kratos despite their ability to do so is just agreeing with me. But I'll humor you,"
"Already addressed".

THEIR IMMORTALITY, NEEDS TO FIRST MOST BE PROVEN OR SHOWN TO RESURRECT IN GAME. In the evidence you game, he doesn't negate anything, I do not agree with you, you must be beyond a state of non comprehension to utter such nonsense.

"It doesn't prove your point as your ignoring the game itself."
"Finishing them refers to Kratos not leaving them alone while they are stunned, and guess how he kills them? By dismantling them."

Yes it proves he doesn't/have gain immortality negation, never stated, never credited from anything. Yes, basic dismantling is enough, they "shatter" beyond what they reform, finishing them off, is what is shown. If they can withstand a degree of physical trauma that doesn't mean they can resist advanced/higher physical trauma that is applied.

"It's not baseless when it has statement backing it. That's the opposite of baseless..."

Yes it is baseless, you assumed they possess every other aspect of other character's immortality is baseless, if you claim they have all the aspects you must prove they do.

"Already addressed."
"Not."

What you claim to have already addressed is untrue, every "evidence" you gave always shows physical trauma being applied and they die and cannot come back (if they were proven to do so), it was never stated or shown that he as anything immortality negation ability. Probably turning them to ashes or small bits will suffice to deal with those goons.

"It doesn't. If I gave 3 slaps to someone and someone gave a beating to another person, your only way of describing what they did is simply saying they inflicted different levels of physical trauma. It isn’t a way of convey something, it's a way to hide it."

In the context of the "evidence" you presented, kratos always applies physical trauma to kill these enemies. It conveys, enough/degree of "physical trauma" will kill them, using your example may it be beat them to dust or slap them into smaller bits enough time. There is no particular need to differentiate here, a false equivalence fallacy.

"He's removing a parasites mind from the body, that can qualify for Type 6 negation."

He negates nothing, "REMOVING the parasite" is done with enough physical damage, you are not negating anything, it's not "that can" it does not qualify for anything immortality type 6 negation. The host dies and the parasite goes away, very simple. Your claim is not supported by the evidence you presented.

 

[Borutonarutodebunked]

Kratos doesn't need to turn them into ice to kill them.

That is contradicted, he tries the same grab atk on one of them and it doesn't die. Again what is shown is that those enemies, cannot withstand more than they can handle. Anything other claim is an assumption, the evidence has it is shows it as such.

 

[DaReaperMan]

"The evidence you provided is a secondary contradicted statement. It's unusable, bury it."
"And stop with the statement, it's non-canon."

It is not unusable, secondary connon or not, it shows how kratos would deal with such enemies without taking gameplay mechanics into to question, simply saying it's secondary contradiction doesn't prove your argument. Going with that you do not get to cheery picks statements/feats in the novel when it suits you and disregard the novel when you do not like.

Let's do a quick QnA!

Q: Is the statement from anything other then a game?
A: yes.

Q: Is it contradicted multiple times by the games?
A: yes

Q: is it usable when contradicted?
A: no.

coming after, less important than, or resulting from someone or something else that is primary. ~ Primary definition for "Secondary"

So, tell me, after having it broken down to you like this, are you still set in your ways? Do you still believe that contradicted secondary canon is evidence for anything?

 

[Deagonx]

Kratos doesn't need to turn them into ice to kill them.

Question for you. Look at these two scenes:

Here Kratos is using the exact same move on the same enemy. If Kratos has the power to negate their ability to regenerate/resurrect, why/how do they get back up in the 2nd instance? What is the difference?

 

[DaReaperMan]

Question for you. Look at these two scenes:

Here Kratos is using the exact same move on the same enemy. If Kratos has the power to negate their ability to regenerate/resurrect, why/how do they get back up in the 2nd instance? What is the difference?

Kratos got tired of their shit and decided to do them in permanently, obviously!

 

[Borutonarutodebunked]

Let's do a quick QnA!


So, tell me, after having it broken down to you like this, are you still set in your ways? Do you still believe that contradicted secondary canon is evidence for anything?

It is not contradicted by the game, enough physical damage kills them which is always depicted in the game, may it be shattered into smaller pieces or to dust (for the novel which does not apply necessary gameplay mechanics). I believe, if there where to be some contradiction in a secondary canon, (novel, game guide), that material should be disregarded completely and should not be used to scale the verse in question, no cheery picking.

 

[DaReaperMan]

It is not contradicted by the game, enough physical damage kills them which is always depicted in the game, may it be shattered into smaller pieces or to dust (for the novel which does not apply necessary gameplay mechanics). I believe, if there where to be some contradiction in a secondary canon, (novel, game guide), that material should be disregarded completely and should not be used to scale the verse in question, no cheery picking.

The statement you keep throwing out is Kratos has to turn them to dust.

The games do not show him turning them to dust.

So it's contradicted.

This isn't rocket science, and we shouldn't be overcomplicating this.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Question for you. Look at these two scenes:

Here Kratos is using the exact same move on the same enemy. If Kratos has the power to negate their ability to regenerate/resurrect, why/how do they get back up in the 2nd instance? What is the difference?

Question for you, why are you ignoring that kratos instantly kills them when he wants to? GoS cursed remains are definitely a more troublesome enemy than they are in GoW 2 (later game chronologically) and kratos struggles against them more, but kratos still can kill them instantly and inevitably kills them outright regardless. GoW 2 he just mops them. This just seems like a miffed response to me showing a direct showcase of kratos instantly killing them. This scenario has been tackled already in this thread, kratos kills them the end. The discussion is becoming a standards thing as always rather than the fact kratos performs a feat.

 

[Borutonarutodebunked]

The statement you keep throwing out is Kratos has to turn them to dust.

The games do not show him turning them to dust.

So it's contradicted.

This isn't rocket science, and we shouldn't be overcomplicating this.

You claim that it contradicts the game, but the game shown that a degree of physical damage deals with them. It is not a contradiction, . It proves different levels of physical damage necessary to beat an enemy.
The game doesn't necessary need him to turn them into dust (assuming it's the same exact enemies as depicted in the novel which you have yet to prove), we always see them shattered into smaller pieces and disappear.
It isn't rocket science that he doesn't need immortality negation just to stop some goons from reforming.

 

[Deagonx]

Question for you, why are you ignoring that kratos instantly kills them when he wants to?

I'm not. I am showing you a gif of the same attack, in one instance it kills them in one instance it does not. Is your stance that he did not kill them in the first gif because he "did not want to?"

I am trying to get to the bottom of your reasoning and @Pepsimanslover_69's reasoning here. Why did the negation ability activate in the second gif and not the first?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Kratos got tired of their shit and decided to do them in permanently, obviously!

I hope you're joking, but in case you aren't... what justification could there possibly be for Kratos, the world's angriest man, randomly sparing the life (or lack thereof) of a skeleton that is trying to kill him? Was his heart just not in it that day? Temporary lapse of judgement, perhaps? Did he think that this particular skeleton, out of the countless undead soldiers he has slain, could somehow be redeemed?

Question for you, why are you ignoring that kratos instantly kills them when he wants to? GoS cursed remains are definitely a more troublesome enemy than they are in GoW 2 (later game chronologically) and kratos struggles against them more, but kratos still can kill them instantly and inevitably kills them outright regardless. GoW 2 he just mops them. This just seems like a miffed response to me showing a direct showcase of kratos instantly killing them. This scenario has been tackled already in this thread, kratos kills them the end. The discussion is becoming a standards thing as always rather than the fact kratos performs a feat.

When you put forth a feat on this site, no matter how explicit it may be, you will inevitably have to deal with any inconsistencies that feat's validity would bring about. A character can explicitly, visually blow up a planet on-screen, but if later material says "no he can't blow up planets actually" and that character later struggles with lesser feats... well, that calls the planet level feat's validity into question, no matter how explicit it may be. So when you say "Kratos can kill these enemies whenever he wants", that's all well and good. That isn't the part I have an issue with. The problem is this staunch refusal to acknowledge that such a feat may be inconsistent with both his showings in other games (or even the same game the feat is from!) and in supplementary material. If the feat is valid, then please feel free to explain why these anti-feats aren't valid. If you don't want to do that, then, well... I don't know what to say to that, honestly.

 

[DaReaperMan]

I hope you're joking, but in case you aren't... what justification could there possibly be for Kratos, the world's angriest man, randomly sparing the life (or lack thereof) of a skeleton that is trying to kill him? Was his heart just not in it that day? Temporary lapse of judgement, perhaps? Did he think that this particular skeleton, out of the countless undead soldiers he has slain, could somehow be redeemed?

What are jokes really though?

 

[Deagonx]

What are jokes really though?

Please do not clog the thread with stuff like this.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

I'm not. I am showing you a gif of the same attack, in one instance it kills them in one instance it does not. Is your stance that he did not kill them in the first gif because he "did not want to?"

I am trying to get to the bottom of your reasoning and @Pepsimanslover_69's reasoning here. Why did the negation ability activate in the second gif and not the first?

Again just ignoring the fact kratos can kill them instantly, as proven by a multitude of gifs I have sent that have not been debunked (and can't be). The issue was never about the length of time or the manner in which kratos kills them, because at the end of the day he is still negating their immortality because he can kill them. Scans of kratos being able to instantly kill them were only brought up because the opposition stated that it wasn't possible and kratos was incapable of doing so. Once again, kratos kills them the end. Many people have brought up this, kratos being able to kill an immortal being with the context here at all is straightforward. Only the opposition seems to be attempting on all bases to avoid this fact and hula hoop around to invalidate the idea he could perform these feats.

 

[Deagonx]

Again just ignoring the fact kratos can kill them instantly, as proven by a multitude of gifs I have sent that have not been debunked (and can't be). The issue was never about the length of time or the manner in which kratos kills them, because at the end of the day he is still negating their immortality because he can kill them. Scans of kratos being able to instantly kill them were only brought up because the opposition stated that it wasn't possible and kratos was incapable of doing so. Once again, kratos kills them the end. Many people have brought up this, kratos being able to kill an immortal being with the context here at all is straightforward. Only the opposition seems to be attempting on all bases to avoid this fact and hula hoop around to invalidate the idea he could perform these feats.

Pariah, I am not asking a rhetorical question.

I am asking for your explanation as to why this body-slam move sometimes negates their immortality and other times it does not. At what point is their ability to reform from a pile of bones "negated" and why is it not occurring in the 2nd video?

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't think it's a matter of "when is it being negated" though. The fact that they Kratos can kill them - whether in one hit or two - to begin with means he's negating their immortality, no? He doesn't need to one-shot them, because their durability's still a thing. For instance, the body slam move negates the immortality, it just doesn't kill them in one hit because of their durability - but they're still able to be killed by it.

This'll be my only comment on the matter. I don't want to engage more, I've quite literally developed a dislike for God of War threads as a whole, I just felt there was some confusion on Immortality Negation as a whole

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

As I said and clover brought up, this is a standards thing. This back and forth and crusade has become insanely boorish and needless as seen with every single thread made so far. If kratos being capable of killing x enemy with x immortality can't be accepted by opposition then there should some other form of approach that can be taken here.

 

[Deagonx]

to begin with means he's negating their immortality, no?

It's a question of what immortality mechanism/function is being negated. If it's Type 2, then he doesn't need negation because Type 2 can normally be surpassed with physical damage.

If the claim is that Kratos is nullifying their ability to resurrect (which is being proposed) then I am asking when does he negate that and how? He clearly isn't negating it with this tackle move, since they get right back up.

As I said and clover brought up, this is a standards thing. This back and forth and crusade has become insanely boorish and needless as seen with every single thread made so far. If kratos being capable of killing x enemy with x immortality can't be accepted by opposition then there should some other form of approach that can be taken here.

This is a dodge. You can kill people with many kinds of immortality without needing a special negation ability. The point is that the Cursed Remains can go from being a scattered pile of bones to a fully-formed skeleton. Kratos' attacks can turn them into a pile of bones (like with the body slam) and this does not kill them until enough damage has been inflicted, then this would suggest that the type of immortality being negated is likely just Type 2 or 3, which can be bypassed with sufficient physical damage.

If you're proposing that Kratos is negating their ability to use a resurrection ability (Type 4 negation) then the proposal becomes somewhat incoherent. If the tackle does not always prevent them from resurrecting, then clearly it's not negating the resurrection ability. If the argument is "no, the tackle does negate it, but only sometimes" then you are going to need to explain why that is. If you can't explain it, you may as well just be admitting it's not a coherent theory.

 

[Deagonx]

By the way, God of War 2 has this same problem. In this clip he kills Skeleton 1 with punches, then Skeleton 2 with a hammer, and then he hits Skeleton 3 several times with a hammer and it reduces into a pile of bones but doesn't fully die, instead it reforms from the pile. This means Kratos is not deactivating their ability to reform from piles of bones with his attacks, he's just surpassing a damage threshold.

There are finishing moves that will always kill them, but this is just as easily interpreted as "these moves will always deal enough damage to surpass the threshold" without needing to believe something kind of bizarre like "this specific move also de-activates resurrection abilities" which is pretty specious.

 

[CloverDragon03]

If the claim is that Kratos is nullifying their ability to resurrect (which is being proposed) then I am asking when does he negate that and how? He clearly isn't negating it with this tackle move, since they get right back up.

I don't see the need for this "when does he negate it" question. Type 4 Immortality would only really kick in when, well... they die. That's how it works. Kratos's initial attack isn't even killing them to trigger the resurrection to begin with, so there's nothing to negate there. It'd be when they're killed that any negation would need to be done since that would be when they're resurrecting - and since they don't resurrect despite the fact that they can do so, the natural conclusion is that it's being negated

 

[Deagonx]

I don't see the need for this "when does he negate it" question. Type 4 Immortality would only really kick in when, well... they die. That's how it works. Kratos's initial attack isn't even killing them to trigger the resurrection to begin with,

The notion that they can resurrect is derived from the fact that when they are scattered into bones they can pull themselves back together from the bones. Kratos is explicitly capable of putting them into this state, it happens both from the tackle in Ghost of Sparta and the hammer in God of War 2. When this happens they reform, indicating that their ability to reform has not been deactivated.

Later, once enough damage is dealt, they scatter again into pile of bones but do not reform. This happens even if you use the same attacks that didn't stop them from reforming earlier. This indicates that the ability to reform is not being directly nullified by the attacks, but is merely a side effect of Kratos dealing enough physical damage to kill them. If that's the case, this is not an ability or immortality negation. It just means that their immortality has a damage threshold.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Hang on, so is the act of putting themselves back together after being broken apart what's considered the resurrection here? I looked at the justification and I don't think it says as much - just a statement of them fighting, dying, and resurrecting. If that's what we're going with, though - yeah, it gets tricky, as they revive but then are just unable to after being hit enough.

To me personally, that still comes across as negating Type 4 Immortality, as they're eventually just unable to revive, but I can see where the concern lies. It seems like some sort of damage threshold thing, but I'm not sure why that wouldn't be a case of Type 4 Immortality - but rather, one dependent on dealing enough damage to the point that their resurrection doesn't work anymore. Doesn't seem like that's necessarily an agreed upon stance, but that's kinda what I make of it from an initial impression