[GRACE] Es vs SCP-682: Battle for 2nd 9-A

[Agnaa]

What do you mean? We had a revision on it a while ago and you agreed to it along with everyone else on the SCP discord

The scans are curently on his profile

The scans on the original canon section only back up some Low-Godly from a true self we never see or have feats for over an unknown amount of time.

I only agreed to it once it was changed from just flat "Low-Godly" to "Low-Godly over time", since we never have any feats of that true-self regen.

EC 682 has its own Mid-Godly feats, but they're never stated to be from a true self, let alone a 1-B true self.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Yes, and in the extended canon the true self is 1-B so what is the issue here?

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Suddenly this got way more interesting

 

[Agnaa]

I'm gonna preface this with a huge warning that I know very little about 682 and leviathan's lore (I'm only familiar with 1-B 682 as a horseman, which doesn't support true self regen). But I haven't read a quote showing that the "true self" referred to is the leviathan yet.

Weekly's just sent me a quote over Discord which I'll look into. But if it does show that, then the regen would be from a 1-B source.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Why not send the quote here tho?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Because its already on the proifle

 

[Agnaa]

After talking with Weekly I'm fine with saying the regen's from a 1-B source. Here's essentially the questions I had and answers to them that got me to this conclusion:

• Q: How do we know that the "true form"'s the 1-B leviathan?
• A: Under original canon there's nothing clarifying what the true form is, but many many extended canon tales show that 682's true form is a leviathan.
• Q: How could the leviathan still be the source of 682's Regenerationn if that leviathan form was sealed into the 682 we see today?
• A: There's still one remnant from 682's 1-B form that remains - the mind. 682 still has the same unsealed mind as it did as a leviathan, thus we conclude that 682 regenerates from that.
• Q: Those quotes seem to imply a physical thing being the "true form" rather than a non-physical consciousness, how do these quotes and 682's leviathan story not contradict each other?
• A: The quotes say that 682 is a shell created by 682's true form, and that it's a projection by its true form, these can simply be taken to mean that 682 is restricted to that shell, but it still projects the image it desires onto it, and regenerates it as it sees fit.

 

[Theglassman12]

where is it stated that having its mind intact makes it able to regenerate its avatar? Again some scans proving this stuff would really help out right about now when I hear quite the opposite of 682's Regenerationn.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Im curious as to what exactly youre hearing about 682's Regenerationn

 

[Agnaa]

It's not stated that having its mind intact makes it able to regenerate its avatar. It has a statement of Low-Godly regen tied to its "true form", and we know that the only part of its true form that is intact is its mind.

Also curious about what else you're hearing about 682's regen.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I still understand why it's 3D self woukd be remade for a universe that was busted.

As far as I understand it's a universal cinstant cuz god yeeted it into thw three of creation, making it part of all crearion.

I don't see why it would be forced to become part of a timeless void too.

Even disregarding that piece of extended canon, it is a constant in reality, not outside of it. It's true self, or any of the ither sources of it's immortalities, would have no reason to regenerate it when there are another infinite versions of it's 3D avatar that the leviathan will be be privy to feel.

Again, there isn't one Leaviathan for every alternate universe. There is one of 'én as far as I' m aware, so why would it regenerate a body into the void?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Not even remotely what we're talking about Ricsi, ive already explained that part to you, and yes there is one leviathan for every alternate universe, 682 or a 682-like entity is a constant in all universes

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Why the hell would be a singular one for every single one?

I guess we are simply not using thee tale where that God yeeted 682 into the tree of creation then..? This is why I dislike the whole SCP thing, way too muddy canon to me.