• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

High Godly Regen Unclear, Got Stuck between Voids

16,606
1,791
It has become clear due to the discussion in the Bill vs Khorne Thread and My disscussion with various community members on discord that there is some major disagreements on what does and does not qualify for High Godly Regen, and What distinguishes it from just really good mid godly.

Here is the current definition: The ability to regenerate even after the totality of your existence is erased, alongside the reality that you are present within that exists up to your own dimensional level.

Seems pretty simple right? This is the definition I was most familiar with, and I took it to mean that if you erase a reality over someone, and they regenerate from it, that his High Godly. Apparently not according to some of the staff members.

Kaltias and Monarch (and tin can boi) both take it to mean that you must completely erase somebody up to that dimensional level. If this is actually true, then the definition of High Godly should be changed, because that is not what the definition says.

Essentially, the current definition implies breadth is what determines High Godly regen. basically, if you erase them and a structure at least equivolent to their dimensional level if not higher, and they regenerate then they have High Godly. But to contrast, they claim that there must be no other structures on that level. They have their definition of High Godly regen set by totality instead of breadth.

If this is true, then it carries many issues.

Pachi raises his own interpritation. He claims that it is where they regenerate in that is important, not from what. Here is his comment:

"I trap character A (who is tier... 7) in a pocket dimension (preferably universe sized).

I'm Low 2-C, therefore, collapsing the thing is easy. I make the dimension disappear.

Scenario 1: character A reappears in main universe: mid-godly.

Scenario 2: character A reappears in the void left by the pocket dimension and then travels to the main universe: high godly."

Essentially, he has based it on location, not level. Unless they come back into a void, it will be Mid Godly at best.

Kalitas raised the following Metaphor, but it still carries isssues. For one, it does not match the above definition. You will see the other issues following. Here is her comment:

"Draw a stickmam on a paper. Stuff that requires Mid-Godly is the equivalent of completely deleting it using a rubber.

Conceptual/nonexistence etc are just a rubber that erases more thoroughly.

Regenerating means that another drawing forms on the paper after deleting it.

Now set on fire the paper and wait until nothing is left. Regenerating from that is what requires High-Godly.

Clearly the drawing can't be reformed on paper in this case, that's the reason why it's a higher level of regen"

It seemed fine at first, but then I raised the following:

"If you burn the piece of paper that has the stickman on it until it is all gone and then it comes back on another piece of paper, that is high godly.

Is that correct?"

Kaltias said it would be mid Godly, raising the case of the case of Ultimate Kriemhild Gretche. The other issue is that it still basically comes down the where they are regenerating not what they are regenerating from. Pachi also has the following:

"If the stickman was erased along the paper and the dude came to another paper from where it was erased, its high godly.

We are talking about 3D beings with high godly regen here.

High godly regen on 3D scale is only regenerating after absolute 3D destruction, which is the same as a Low 2-C bust."

This seems more along the lines of the original definition with the a bit of variation.


Anyway, long story short, if the current definition is incorrect or lacking, then it should be fixed. But I am quickly going to raise a critisism of the idea that High Godly should be based off of where they regenerate into, or that it should ignore the level of attack.

The first thing I shall raise is The Basanos. Yes, I know they True Godly regen, but I am using an extreme example to prove my point. If the level of the erasure does not matter, then by that idea, they should have mid godly since they are just regenerating into a lower level. Also, I looked up the context for the scan, and no, they are not in the void.

I also originally brought up Frisk in here, with them regenerating in the void but still being only Mid-Godly, but there is some split on interpritation there as well.
 
If this reasoning is changed, then the Lady of Pain may need to be changed, as well as Vecna and similar Greater Gods.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
This just sounds like people don't understand the definition of High-Godly and want to change it so it'll agree with them.
I am inclined to agree. But it's more that 2 mods came in and said very similar things gave it some credibility, but it seems to not fit with the definition
 
@Cal @Dragonmaster

Basically I wanna make sure that the current definition we are using is precise enough, and is correct. Like there aren't any other unwritten requirements or twists as Monarch, Pachi, and Kaltias raised. Is it all good in that regard?
 
I don't think that we should constantly change working definitions that we have agreed about through lots of previous discussion.
 
Antvasima said:
I don't think that we should constantly change working definitions that we have agreed about through lots of previous discussion.
I would agree, but if there is some unwritten rule that I is not generally aware then it should be tweaked to include it. If the current definition is fine, then we should stick with it, but I do feel like we should hear the explanations from the people who have raised their own interpretations
 
You sure that Kal said that about UKG? Because UKG remained in said void, it didn't reappear in another "paper" as you are stating (Maybe that's where the confusion lies?)
 
SomebodyData said:
You sure that Kal said that about UKG? Because UKG remained in said void, it didn't reappear in another "paper" as you are stating (Maybe that's where the confusion lies?)
Take a look at the original thread. Just to control F and find the original mention. I want to make sure I have not some how missrepresented her point. I am not knowledgable on PMM
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
Kalitas raised the following Metaphor, but it still carries isssues. For one, it does not match the above definition. You will see the other issues following. Here is her comment:
Kaltias is male, don't refer to him as "her" ovo
 
@SD

It was referred to the fact that UKG not having High-Godly is related to another "piece of paper" existing (even if technically her case is more like regenerating near the paper but outside of it)

@Overlord

It must be the profile pic lol
 
Overlord775 said:
Iapitus The Impaler said:
Kalitas raised the following Metaphor, but it still carries isssues. For one, it does not match the above definition. You will see the other issues following. Here is her comment:
Kaltias is male, don't refer to him as "her" ovo
You don't know that. ovo
 
All fruits don't ripen at the same time. I wholeheartedly agree with Matt and Ant, we can't keep changing the definition. You know how many people think "being above infinite universes" is Low 1-C? Doesn't mean we're going to change the definitions/requirements of Low 1-C simply because people don't understand it.
 
I agree with Sera.

Perhaps it would be best to close this thread?
 
Now, if someone proposed an explanation section similar to the Speed page, that'd be fine. Someone would just have to write it.
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
Matthew Schroeder said:
This just sounds like people don't understand the definition of High-Godly and want to change it so it'll agree with them.
I am inclined to agree. But it's more that 2 mods came in and said very similar things gave it some credibility, but it seems to not fit with the definitio
That is just an appeal to authority though.

Edit: Them being mods have nothing to do with how credible their argument is.
 
I was explaining why I thought it was worth bringing up. If it was just 2 or 3 random people who I didn't know who were missinterpritting them, then I probably wouldn't have thought twice, but since they are Mods of whom upgrades and downgrades often live and on their approval, I thought I would take a double take. Besides, they have been around far longer than I

Its not so much that they are necesarilly more right, its that them being wrong matters more. Either way, the point is, they would idealy be more familiar with the interworkings of the system
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
This just sounds like people don't understand the definition of High-Godly and want to change it so it'll agree with them.
Unless I misunderstood it, which it may be the case:

Complete 3D destruction: Low 2-C (since the dimension itself needs to collapse)

Complete 4D destruction: 2-A (multiverse collapses)

Regenerating from an universal bust in a low 2-C scsle for a 3D character is a high godly regen feat. And regenerating from 2-A bust is high godly for 4Ds (Yggdrasil has High godly for that iirc).
 
A complete 4D destruction would not only consist of infinite universes but uncountably infinite ones, alongside the structure that contains them.
 
Imagine a pile of paper sheets on a stick. The sheets are universes and the stick is the structure that maintains them.

If you remove one of them, and the character regenerates on another sheet or on the stick, it's still mid-godly, even if the latter is already regenerating in a void as it's outside any universe in the structure

If you remove everything, stick included, and the character still regenerates without needing the structure to exist, that's high-godly, as the entire dimensional level he existed in got erased

Someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I said anything wrong
 
That's... I don't even know where to start.

What do you mean by the stick maintaining the? what is the equivolent to that? And no, if the being is 2D, that's High Godly if it survives the sheet its on being erased, whether that is in the void or on another piece of paper.
 
I think that you guys are kind of overcomplicating it.

High-Godly means that you regen when absolutely nothing exists up to your dimensional level.

If you check the thread that Nedge posted, you can see that this was the conclusion. Maybe the wording is ambiguous, but those are the requirements.
 
Kaltias said:
High-Godly means that you regen when absolutely nothing exists up to your dimensional level.
Which is basically what I said

The stick is the dimensional level. Regenerating anywhere inside it is Mid-Godly
 
DMB 1 said:
A complete 4D destruction would not only consist of infinite universes but uncountably infinite ones, alongside the structure that contains them.
Not at all. In a verse with only four universes a complete 4D destruction would be the spacetime of all four universes. Can't suggest extra universes where they do not exist.
 
Not at all. In a verse with only four universes a complete 4D destruction would be the spacetime of all four universes. Can't suggest extra universes where they do not exist.

Complete 4D destruction would be destroying the dimensional plane itself. Only destroying the universes is 2-A at best.
 
Back
Top