God of war | Kratos's immortality Negation section.

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Being ripped apart at the midsection is different from simply tearing off legs.

Deagnox, Kratos is clearly tearing their legs off, not their midsection.

No, Type 7 Negation isn't something like "making them live again through resurrection" it refers to stripping them of the magical status of being undead. If you negate a zombie's Type 7 Immortality they just revert to being an inert corpse. Same with Skeletons. This isn't the same as beating them to death. It's normal in fiction for people to be able to kill undead skeletons by hitting them enough times, that's not immortality negation.

That still doesn't address the rest of the points I made.

and how is striping the death of something evidence? You're literally removing their very essence of death. You're not killing a dead being at that point.

Also, can provide evidence of this being a standard?

No, because the statement is still satisfied by them just coming back to life at some point in the future.

No, you can't continue a battle at that point.

It's clear that Kratos is inflicting damage on them that causes them to die. Even if their form is oddly amorphous, it doesn't make sense to interpret this as immortality negation. If he is negating their immortality through a special ability instead of simply inflicting enough damage, it doesn't follow that he has to hit them until they die in the first place.

No? In God of war III he just goes up to them and kills. There's no need to damage them or the like.

And they survive having every part of them being disconnected from the other, how is having their skull or torse disconnected is "enough damage"?

Right, you have to finish them off, as in, deal enough damage for them to fully die. You use the same kind of attacks to finish them off that you do to get them to the "about to die state" where they are wobbling. Again, if Kratos is negating their immortality, why didn't the earlier attacks accomplish it?

How is that counter evidence? You're assuming that Kratos just needs to touch them for them to die, rather then Kratos needing the opportunity to defeat them so he can get an opening, something that's showcased in every Media when it comes to fighting an opponent.

And again, please don't ignore the rest.

And the use of "re-animating" would suggest that they had been killed, as such, they had their immortality, Type 2, nullified.

That isn't immortality negation.

Why?

 

[Deagonx]

Deagnox, Kratos is clearly tearing their legs off, not their midsection.

In the video you linked, that is not the case. The breaking point is clearly their midsection, not simply legs being torn.

That still doesn't address the rest of the points I made.
Also, can provide evidence of this being a standard?

Pretty much anyone can kill a skeleton in fiction. Every TES main character can kill skeletons, they don't have Type 7 negation for it.

No, you can't continue a battle at that point.

You can continue some other battle. Nothing says they are supposed to resurrect instantaneously and nothing indicates that Kratos used a special ability to deactivate it.

No? In God of war III he just goes up to them and kills. There's no need to damage them or the like.

He kills them by damaging them, the same way he kills other enemies who are not undead.

You're assuming that Kratos just needs to touch them for them to die, rather then Kratos needing the opportunity to defeat them so he can get an opening, something that's showcased in every Media when it comes to fighting an opponent.

He has to damage them until they start wobbling, and then hit them again to fully kill them. Again, the same kinds of attacks he uses to stun them is what finishes them off, there's no room here for a special ability that inexplicably deactivates their immortality rather than just surpassing a damage threshold.

Why?

Anyone can do it, there is no special power involved. He's just beating up the physical host.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Being ripped apart at the midsection is different from simply tearing off legs.

Have you.... seen their applications in game by chance? They have no midsection, they're legit bones. And they can disassemble and reassemble their entire skeletal bodies at will.

 

[Deagonx]

Have you.... seen their applications in game by chance? They have no midsection, they're legit bones. And they can disassemble and reassemble their entire skeletal bodies at will.

Sure, that was with regard to a different enemy.

In any case, I have addressed this gif. Kratos' attacks leave the skeleton in a dazed state where he can attack them again and completely destroy them. If Kratos' attacks are negating their immortality, then it doesn't make sense why that doesn't occur during any of his earlier attacks. It makes more sense for it to be a damage threshold.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

In the video you linked, that is not the case. The breaking point is clearly their midsection, not simply legs being torn.

Deagnox, please, Kratos rips them into two by separating their hip from the rest of the body. And the game showcases their immortality extends to such damage,

Pretty much anyone can kill a skeleton in fiction. Every TES main character can kill skeletons, they don't have Type 7 negation for it.

It being a common ability or a mechanism in the verse or fiction in general isn't counter evidence, and other verses have different context on such subjects.

None of what you suggested is addressing my other points, again. And please, show it as being a standard, since you haven't provided evidence for it.

You can continue some other battle. Nothing says they are supposed to resurrect instantaneously and nothing indicates that Kratos used a special ability to deactivate it.

They don't continue an other battle, they continue the battle, that's a big difference.

He kills them by damaging them, the same way he kills other enemies who are not undead.

Deagnox, please, it's pretty clear he does not at all damage them prior to any attack he does in the video.

He has to damage them until they start wobbling, and then hit them again to fully kill them. Again, the same kinds of attacks he uses to stun them is what finishes them off, there's no room here for a special ability that inexplicably deactivates their immortality rather than just surpassing a damage threshold.

Deagnox, none of what you said is even a counter to the original point.

And please, tell me, how does killing someone in a way they should survive not immortality negation? And please, show where's this standard from?

And no, he isn't surpassing a damage threshold, they survive having every part of themselves as completely disconnected it from their bodies, him disconnecting one to kill them isn't counter evidence at all.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Sure, that was with regard to a different enemy.

In any case, I have addressed this gif. Kratos' attacks leave the skeleton in a dazed state where he can attack them again and completely destroy them. If Kratos' attacks are negating their immortality, then it doesn't make sense why that doesn't occur during any of his earlier attacks. It makes more sense for it to be a damage threshold.

What is the argument here? That kratos needs to one shot enemies? I showcased them reassembling in the same gif. "Damage threshold" would equate to kratos solely needing to vaporize them or completely grind all of their bones to dust to be above their showcases, which he doesn't do at all. He kills them like any other regular mob no roundabout methods required. How is kratos being able to kill an enemy in the game being used as an anti feat now?

 

[Planck69]

Sure, that was with regard to a different enemy.

In any case, I have addressed this gif. Kratos' attacks leave the skeleton in a dazed state where he can attack them again and completely destroy them. If Kratos' attacks are negating their immortality, then it doesn't make sense why that doesn't occur during any of his earlier attacks. It makes more sense for it to be a damage threshold.

Immortality Negation is fundamentally just bypassing a target's immortality to kill them. Doing so in one hit is not nor has it ever been a requirement like you seem to be implying. And damage threshold makes no sense here, given he's not pulversing their bones or anything.

 

[Deagonx]

Immortality Negation is fundamentally just bypassing a target's immortality to kill them. Doing so in one hit is not nor has it ever been a requirement like you seem to be implying. And damage threshold makes no sense here, given he's not pulversing their bones or anything.

The damage threshold is explicitly described in two of the sources, and is embedded in the criteria for Immortality Type 2. He wouldn't need to pulverize their bones (not sure where that came from) for there to be a damage threshold.

What is the argument here? That kratos needs to one shot enemies?

No, it is that the fact that he is using regular attacks to kill them, and they only regenerate if he does not finish them, suggests he's simply overcoming the limits of their regeneration.

Deagnox, please, Kratos rips them into two by separating their hip from the rest of the body.

We've moved from legs to hips now, but in any case, the breaking point in the image is visibly the midsection.

Deagnox, please, it's pretty clear he does not at all damage them prior to any attack he does in the video.

Sure. The attack itself damages them enough to kill them. That's just broadly how attacking something works.

And please, tell me, how does killing someone in a way they should survive not immortality negation? And please, show where's this standard from?

And no, he isn't surpassing a damage threshold, they survive having every part of themselves as completely disconnected it from their bodies, him disconnecting one to kill them isn't counter evidence at all.

I think we've exhausted this line of argumentation. In any case my stance is clear. Regardless, this isn't a removal thread, so it will be addressed in later revisions that are being planned.

 

[Theglassman12]

What exactly are you trying to argue here Deagon, that Kratos doesn't immediately oneshot enemies right off the bat as a justification for him not having immortality negation?

Pretty much anyone can kill a skeleton in fiction. Every TES main character can kill skeletons, they don't have Type 7 negation for it.

TES pages are also outdated as **** so not really a good comparison to use here.

 

[Deagonx]

What exactly are you trying to argue here Deagon, that Kratos doesn't immediately oneshot enemies right off the bat as a justification for him not having immortality negation?

No, it's that the type of mortality negation being proposed doesn't make sense in light of how these fights are carried out. The notion is that he is deactivating their ability to regenerate. If you hit them until they are stunned, you can attack them again and they permanently die. If you don't, they fall apart and then reform from the bones.

So, what's the idea here, that all of his attacks leading up to them being stunned do not deactivate the regeneration but the final one does? What possible reason for that could there be?

Could we envision that specifically this final attack has some regenerating-deactivating enchantment in it? I guess we could. However, the notion that these beings are instead just at the limit of how much damage they can take before permanently dying also explains what we see on screen, aligns with the other sources in the OP that speak to the damage threshold, and doesn't require us to theorize that Kratos has an unstated ability to prevent things from regenerating that only activates with specific attacks, and that none of this is explained in the game or lore its just inferred from this theory we have.

TES pages are also outdated as **** so not really a good comparison to use here.

It doesn't matter. The point is that skeletons are bog-standard fantasy enemies and it's normal to be able to kill them. That isn't immortality negation.

 

[Theglassman12]

Sounds more like you’re trying to apply some arbitrary roadblocks for immortality negation when at no point is this a standard for how the ability works. I know this since I helped make the ability be an actual thing on the site. It being a final hit or not doesn’t change the fact Kratos still kills them despite their immortality naturally shrugging off these kinds of wounds at a normal basis.

Thats not an argument, them being normal enemies just further justify the verse being able to kill enemies with type 7 immortality, ghosts are common in fantasy settings too, doesn’t mean that the characters just arbitrarily don’t have Non physical interaction despite showing they can interact with ghosts.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Sounds more like you’re trying to apply some arbitrary roadblocks for immortality negation when at no point is this a standard for how the ability works. I know this since I helped make the ability be an actual thing on the site. It being a final hit or not doesn’t change the fact Kratos still kills them despite their immortality naturally shrugging off these kinds of wounds at a normal basis.

Glass, I think you're not addressing Deagon's core concern here. If Kratos truly does have immortality negation, then the enemies he kills shouldn't be able to come back at all. But they do, and then he has to kill them in a specific way for them to stay dead. I think Deagon has every right to ask why that is the case. If there is no reason given... well, then we can discuss what to do next, because a scenario where only some of a character's attacks negate immortality is a bit odd as far as indexing goes.

Thats not an argument, them being normal enemies just further justify the verse being able to kill enemies with type 7 immortality, ghosts are common in fantasy settings too, doesn’t mean that the characters just arbitrarily don’t have Non physical interaction despite showing they can interact with ghosts.

This is a bit odd, because even very well-indexed verses do not treat "can kill skeletons" as a form of immortality negation. Being undead doesn't make you immune to being beaten to death or ripped apart, so IMO type 7 negation is a bit similar to type 1 negation in that it requires more specific methods than merely killing an opponent through conventional means.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

We've moved from legs to hips now, but in any case, the breaking point in the image is visibly the midsection.

Not at all. It's pretty clearly Kratos ripping their legs off.

Regardless, the game showcases they survive that level of damage regardless.

Sure. The attack itself damages them enough to kill them. That's just broadly how attacking something works.

That's just false. Their immortality extends to surviving as parts of broken bones, Kratos killing them by decapitation or dismemberment is not suppressing a damage threshold in any way.

I think we've exhausted this line of argumentation. In any case my stance is clear. Regardless, this isn't a removal thread, so it will be addressed in later revisions that are being planned.

You've been doing nothing but bringing unknown strandeds and claims of suppressing a damage threshold at this point.

Can you showcase these strandeds?

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Glass, I think you're not addressing Deagon's core concern here. If Kratos truly does have immortality negation, then the enemies he kills shouldn't be able to come back at all. But they do, and then he has to kill them in a specific way for them to stay dead. I think Deagon has every right to ask why that is the case. If there is no reason given... well, then we can discuss what to do next, because a scenario where only some of a character's attacks negate immortality is a bit odd as far as indexing goes.

When do they come back? There's no instances of that, if Kratos does decide to kill them, they die.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara except for the fact that they don’t come back. This argument just sounds like the enemies Kratos fights are the same exact people over and over again and just respawn to come back when at no point is that ever specified in the slightest. Also some attacks being able to negate immortality doesn’t contradict immortality negation when the end result still becomes “they die and don’t come back”, idk why this is hard to understand.

Except skeletons that generally reform from literal pieces of bones and just spontaneously come back to life. Slashing at them and not doing any further damage than what their base state was prior to reforming, but them dropping dead as a result just proves type 7 immortality negation. Especially in god of war’s case where the undead are stated to be cursed to live and come back to life for eternity, so Kratos killing then and they don’t immediately come back backs up type 7 negation

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

When do they come back? There's no instances of that, if Kratos does decide to kill them, they die.

...Are you insinuating that the times where Kratos punches them into pieces and they immediately regenerate is due to Kratos not wanting to kill them?

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara except for the fact that they don’t come back. This argument just sounds like the enemies Kratos fights are the same exact people over and over again and just respawn to come back when at no point is that ever specified in the slightest.

Bro

You can literally see them get smashed to bits and then instantly stand right back up like nothing happened. What do you mean "they don't come back"? This is a textbook example of "coming back".

Also some attacks being able to negate immortality doesn’t contradict immortality negation when the end result still becomes “they die and don’t come back”, idk why this is hard to understand.

So let me ask again: What is the explanation for why only some of Kratos' attacks can do the job, but other attacks can't kill them? To me, it seems logical that they have a limit to their regen and will "die" if broken down enough times or weakened before being finished off (a conclusion supported by the novelization), but if you have an alternate explanation, I'd love to hear it.

Except skeletons that generally reform from literal pieces of bones and just spontaneously come back to life. Slashing at them and not doing any further damage than what their base state was prior to reforming, but them dropping dead as a result just proves type 7 immortality negation. Especially in god of war’s case where the undead are stated to be cursed to live and come back to life for eternity, so Kratos killing then and they don’t immediately come back backs up type 7 negation

Except the forms of immortality you described are just types 4 & 8. We're talking about type 7 immortality negation. Even if you buy Kratos negating types 4 & 8, that doesn't mean he negates type 7 too.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Are you insinuating that the times where Kratos punches them into pieces and they immediately regenerate is due to Kratos not wanting to kill them?

I'm asking for a showcase of them coming back, not making a point.

As for the rest, while that interpretation can work with God of war II, it just doesn't work with God of war III. In III, Kratos no longer needs to do any prior damage or the like, in fact, he can just kill them by going up to them.

Due to III, that interpretation is just unlikely.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Kratos's

Minor punctuation mistake, I win.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

What form of power is this?!

 

[Deagonx]

It being a final hit or not doesn’t change the fact Kratos still kills them despite their immortality naturally shrugging off these kinds of wounds at a normal basis.

It's a matter of the type of immortality they have. If only his final hit can actually kill them, clearly he's not negating regeneration. Which means it's just another showcase of Type 2.

Thats not an argument, them being normal enemies just further justify the verse being able to kill enemies with type 7 immortality, ghosts are common in fantasy settings too, doesn’t mean that the characters just arbitrarily don’t have Non physical interaction despite showing they can interact with ghosts.

If we give everyone who can kill skeletons and zombies "Type 7 immortality negation" then frankly we should just remove that as an ability because it's inherently meaningless. You aren't negating anything, you're just killing an undead enemy. Undead things can die through conventional means, I could kill a zombie or a skeleton.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara So we're just ignoring the next two seconds of him breaking them apart and the fact they just die die? Ok then.

So your argument is game mechanics then is that your point? Especially when how Kratos kills these undead creatures is hardly any different than what any other mob enemies die in the first place.

The type 7 immortality we already have showings of the undead living through being ripped in half and yet Kratos ripping them apart just instantly kills them, so again what exactly are you trying to argue here because it sounds more like you're just nitpicking how he kills them and just ignore the end result of them dying in the end.

@Deagonx Why does his final hit killing them contradict the negation? Answer the question because you're just saying "only final hit can kill" when that's never how immortality negation works in the first place. First hit, final hit, doesn't change the end result that they still die in the end.

No, you're killing them in ways they would normally just live through via their undead nature, it's not the same thing.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara So we're just ignoring the next two seconds of him breaking them apart and the fact they just die die? Ok then.

Don't try to deflect the burden of evidence onto me. You're arguing that Kratos can kill these enemies innately, so can you explain why we very clearly see evidence against that? I don't care if he destroys them later, the fact of the matter is, there's explicitly some sort of inconsistency regarding the depiction of how Kratos kills these enemies, and you should be expected to explain that inconsistency.

So your argument is game mechanics then is that your point? Especially when how Kratos kills these undead creatures is hardly any different than what any other mob enemies die in the first place.

What part of my argument of this is game mechanics, Glass? Especially when I mentioned how the novelization supports these enemies having a limit to their immortality that Kratos can bypass by damaging them enough. That would be the opposite of game mechanics.

No, you're killing them in ways they would normally just live through via their undead nature, it's not the same thing.

...They live through it because of their other forms of immortality, Glass. Not by virtue of being skeletons. If you took away the context of Zeus cursing them to never die, then tearing them in half would kill them, because undead things tend to die when ripped to shreds.

 

[DaReaperMan]

So, ignoring the rest, which I'm fairly neutral on(both sides generally make good points), Type 7 negation has got to go, I'd argue it can't be negated in the first place, even.

Type 7 is literally just "is undead". It has it's place as an Immortality, but the only way to really negate it would be to literally make them 100% alive again.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

So, ignoring the rest, which I'm fairly neutral on(both sides generally make good points), Type 7 negation has got to go, I'd argue it can't be negated in the first place, even.

Type 7 is literally just "is undead". It has it's place as an Immortality, but the only way to really negate it would be to literally make them 100% alive again.

Now, to be fair, there is the specific application of coming back as a spiritual entity after death. I think that can be negated, since it's not really the same as just beating up a skeleton.

That said, that doesn't even apply to anything in GoW so who cares lol

 

[Deagonx]

Why does his final hit killing them contradict the negation? Answer the question because you're just saying "only final hit can kill" when that's never how immortality negation works in the first place. First hit, final hit, doesn't change the end result that they still die in the end.

I have explained this twice already in considerable detail. You haven't addressed it.

No, it's that the type of immortality negation being proposed doesn't make sense in light of how these fights are carried out. The notion is that he is deactivating their ability to regenerate. If you hit them until they are stunned, you can attack them again and they permanently die. If you don't, they fall apart and then reform from the bones.

So, what's the idea here, that all of his attacks leading up to them being stunned do not deactivate the regeneration but the final one does? What possible reason for that could there be?

Could we envision that specifically this final attack has some regenerating-deactivating enchantment in it? I guess we could. However, the notion that these beings are instead just at the limit of how much damage they can take before permanently dying also explains what we see on screen, aligns with the other sources in the OP that speak to the damage threshold, and doesn't require us to theorize that Kratos has an unstated ability to prevent things from regenerating that only activates with specific attacks, and that none of this is explained in the game or lore its just inferred from this theory we have.

No, you're killing them in ways they would normally just live through via their undead nature, it's not the same thing.

Most undead just will die to physical damage. That's not negation.

but the only way to really negate it would be to literally make them 100% alive again.

You could also have it by stripping them of their undead status directly.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Now, to be fair, there is the specific application of coming back as a spiritual entity after death. I think that can be negated, since it's not really the same as just beating up a skeleton.

That said, that doesn't even apply to anything in GoW so who cares lol

But that isn't type 7 that's a really ****** up version of type 4 or 8 or 9(depending on context of course), that spiritual entity just HAS type 7 attached to it

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

But that isn't type 7 that's a really ****** up version of type 4 or 8 or 9(depending on context of course), that spiritual entity just HAS type 7 attached to it

I'm not the one who wrote the standards, man.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara Oh so you don't care that your evidence goes against your claims? Good to know that we're not gonna pay attention to context with this discussion now.

The part where you're saying only some attacks can kill but others don't, you're basically asking why Kratos doesn't just oneshot every enemy which is the most game mechanics type argument you can pull, which we don't include for obvious reasons unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of nerfing every single video game series ever that doesn't include oneshots of random enemies.

Except the context here says otherwise so your point has no ground here.

@Deagonx That doesn't address my point on why that contradicts immortality negation in the slightest. If the end result is that Kratos still kills the undead creatures despite them coming back from the exact same type of damage then the most obvious solution is he permanently killed them. You're just trying to make this some roundabout way to say that he can't kill them despite already conceding that he still does by just beating them up.

Physical damage that just renders them into bones, the same state they can come back from? Not the same thing when it shows the opposite.

 

[Deagonx]

then the most obvious solution is he permanently killed them

...are you under the impression that I do not believe he permanently killed them?

Even though the second sentence in the quoted argument was "you can attack them again and they permanently die?"

I am not sure what to say here really.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

...are you under the impression that I do not believe he permanently killed them?

Even though the second sentence in the quoted argument was "you can attack them again and they permanently die?"

I am not sure what to say here really.

If this is the case then what's the problem?

 

[Deagonx]

If this is the case then what's the problem?

Is the strategy here to simply ask me to explain the problem over and over? I don't understand. I have like a 3 paragraph explanation of the problem from three comments ago, which was in response to Glass asking "what's the problem" and the response I got was "you're just trying to say he can't kill them."

And when I pointed out that I said he could kill them multiple times, we restart the cycle with another "what's the problem?"

I think the problem is no one is reading the explanation I keep repeating.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Let me try to boil this down as simply as possible.

1. Kratos beats up an enemy.
2. The enemy is shattered into pieces.
3. The enemy regenerates after a few seconds.
4. Kratos beats them up a second time.
5. The enemy shatters into pieces again.
6. The enemy does not regenerate.

That is the sequence of events we're dealing with here. The opposition seems to believe that only parts 4, 5, and 6 are important. However, we are asking them to explain why parts 1, 2, and 3 can happen when they contradict the idea of Kratos having immortality negation. So, can anyone please explain why parts 1, 2, and 3 are able to take place (I have highlighted the relevant parts of the list in red, if it helps)? Is there an in-universe explanation, or is it simply an inconsistency?

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Is the strategy here to simply ask me to explain the problem over and over? I don't understand. I have like a 3 paragraph explanation of the problem from three comments ago, which was in response to Glass asking "what's the problem" and the response I got was "you're just trying to say he can't kill them."

And when I pointed out that I said he could kill them multiple times, we restart the cycle with another "what's the problem?"

I think the problem is no one is reading the explanation I keep repeating.

Not really, no. It's just that the whole thing here is stupid.

Kratos kills someone immortal by attacking them continuously, you guys say that's not immortality negation despite the fact that he kills someone immortal.

Whether it is in the first, second, third, one hundred hit it's irrelevant.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Not really, no. It's just that the whole thing here is stupid.

Kratos kills someone immortal by attacking them continuously, you guys say that's not immortality negation despite the fact that he kills someone immortal.

Whether it is in the first, second, third, one hundred hit it's irrelevant.

It is absolutely relevant, though, because Occam's Razor would suggest that these enemies simply can't withstand being reduced to bits more than once or twice. They already have established limits to their immortality, so assuming that someone bypassing their immortality is merely hitting that limit is a pretty reasonable conclusion. Like, what exactly is the alternative here? That Kratos doesn't feel like killing those enemies until the second time around? That his immortality negation only turns on after failing to kill someone a certain number of times?

 

[Nierre]

So assuming that Kratos doesn't have Immo Negation since he didn't kill them the first time around, how would we explain/define when he actually does kill them the second or third time? Would that be a limitation of the Immortality (some kind of threshold)? Is there any lore or in-universe explanation as to why there'd be a limitation, or is this the only sample we've got to come to this conclusion?

 

[DaReaperMan]

Problem is you'd have to find an explicit statement of their Immortality being limited like that lol

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

If the current disagreement was because Kratos needed to damage them prior, then there really shouldn't have been one.

In God of war III, Kratos can kill these enemies with no need to prior damage. Heck, I booted up the game just to make sure. He absolutely doesn't need damage to kill them, at all.

Now why I'm focusing on God of war III? well it's simple, it's the main factor as Kratos's primary evidence for immortality Negation (for the Cursed Remains). The fact it got ignored when I pointed it out is pretty weird.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx so you agree that he did kill them permanently? Because that's the most important part of the argument here, you keep bringing up the same points over but the effect is still that kratos kills the beings that can't die easily.

@Nierre the skeletons in question are stated to be forced to stay alive for eternity, so it's not really implied that the immortality itself is limited unless the definition of the word "eternity" changed.

 

[Deagonx]

@Deagonx so you agree that he did kill them permanently?

Yep I said so three times in the argument that you have not yet addressed.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Yep I said so three times in the argument that you have not yet addressed.

I addressed it.

If the current disagreement was because Kratos needed to damage them prior, then there really shouldn't have been one.

In God of war III, Kratos can kill these enemies with no need to prior damage. Heck, I booted up the game just to make sure. He absolutely doesn't need damage to kill them, at all.

Now why I'm focusing on God of war III? well it's simple, it's the main factor as Kratos's primary evidence for immortality Negation (for the Cursed Remains). The fact it got ignored when I pointed it out is pretty weird.