• 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 regeneration problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
And you just showed my entire problem with this entire "regenerated from a concept", it's not a thing that makes sense. As I explained in my blog, there's a big misunderstanding about what "Concepts" are and saying "regenerated from conceptual destruction" for a singular being, makes no single difference than saying "regenerated from a soul", because for a particular thing, a soul is the closest thing to a concept.

If we are using concept for just saying "the highest level of existence in a cosmology", then fine, but this would always be related to the "Concept" in "Conceptual Manipulation" and simply using two equal words, but with totally different meanings, without giving a proper explanation for the difference, is a terrible idea when we should be making this as easier to understand as possible (And is possible).

Basically, saying "conceptual destruction" or "regenerated from a concept" means nothing (For all the reasons explained in the blog). And if we would use that, we would really need to explain what that means for that. And at that point I don't know why we need to give a new definition to the word "concept", if we could simply use "regenerate from nothingness across all planes of existence of a being", since this wouldn't create all the problems of having to deal with the multiple hype interpretation of a word.
 
I agree with Ex (obviously, since I’ve said something similar before). I just would prefer “all” be replaced with “multiple” because I don’t want people thinking in say, a High 1-B verse, that you need to be erased across infinite dimensions (which already creates issues) to get High Godly, you just need to be erased across multiple “levels” (for lack of a better term, I’m very tired) or “points”, if you follow me.

Coming back even after being erased from all points in history (even in 1-A verses) is already more impressive than Mid-Godly, which is basically just EEing someone to get rid of permanently (under normal circumstances).
 
Of course that is more about the levels of existence of a certain entity and its usage. At that point I feel that High-Godly could be considered just as a generic term of "regeneration from more planes of existence than two" and everything more "specific" is more on the profiles themselves than the definition (I think that is similar to the levels of Complex Multiverse and Hyperverse).

About something else, I think that a better explanation of what these "planes of existence" are as well as trying to end the confusion about concepts and essences as a whole, we maybe could update one page or two (Or create a new page) with that information, since I think that a lot of people would be confused without knowing what the "Planes of Existence" really are.
 
I would obviously appreciate if you could help our visitors more easily understand such issues via an official explanation page, but what should it be called?

Also, Sera, would you be willing to help Executor with this?
 
I was thinking in something like our Composite_Hierarchies page n structure and style. if necessary, I can create a blog giving an example of what a page like that would need using the blog that I made. I personally will add some problem solving text at the end of the page, in order to answer quickly some questions that I can think of and give examples of what is valid or not. Since I know that some franchises uses the same word in different context, with different meanings, and most of people wouldn't notice it.
 
Okay. That is probably a good idea, but I cannot promise anything until after we see the finished draft.

@Sera_EX @DontTalkDT

Would you be willing to help him out please?
 
I don't have the time to read through the entire blog right now. I will try to do so later.
Let me already say that "planes of existence" is a bad term to use for this though, as we associate this terms with realms of certain levels of infinity in the tiering system, which probably isn't what you wish to say here. Just as a note for when it comes to writing pages regarding this in practice.
 
I’ve already said that the definition is fine and this thread only exists because of a misconception. If we need a note specifying the difference between acausality (resistance) and regeneration, repetitive as it might be, I’d be up for that option. An explanatory blog though, while permissible, is certainly not necessary.
 
I know this is a staff thread, but would Aspects of Existence be a better term? I feel its a term that is less likely to be associated with Higher-Dimensions than Layers or Planes of Existence, especially if mentioned in correlation with Souls and Concepts.
 
If DontTalkDT, Sera, and Promestein all think that it is a bad idea to mess with our definitions in this case, I trust their senses of judgement.
 
For clarification: I have said nothing important on the issue yet. Tbh I have at least one slight issue with the current definition, but I will get to that once I finished reading N0's blog.
 
I just don't like the wording of 'planes of existence', personally.

Well, really, I don't like the definition Executor suggests. It seems very restrictive while also quite vague. I'd rather there was no change.
 
As I said the name can be anything, just like the definition can be anything. I just tried to give a more vague and inclusive definition because I saw some threads really misunderstanding what "concepts" or "souls" can really mean creating an "not always right" idea of superiority. And if something can be improved, then I think that we should try to do something. And simply allowing to different levels of "Non-Corporeality" and giving more explanation on concepts, souls, mind, spirits and all of those "levels of being", isn't as "system changing" as other alternatives.
 
Levels of being is less misleading wording than planes of existence.

This doesn't seem to be at all a change though, given, "The ability to regenerate after erasure from all aspects of existence"
 
Last edited:
Finally read through the blog. I think I can generally agree to the sentiment, although there are some details that might need to be worked out when it comes to writing stuff about it in practice.
First I want to address one issue I have with either definition of High-Godly, whether the current one or the one proposed by Executor N0. I will for now stick to the current one to explain it, though.

The issue is: Should it really be "The ability to regenerate after erasure from all aspects of existence"?
It seems a like a NLF if one considers that there could be any number of "aspects of existence" that any fiction in question just doesn't consider (/characters in the fiction just don't know about). It also doesn't seem like what we currently treat it as, if we say that something like regenerating from erasure from history or conceptual erasure (in the Type 2/1 sense of concept manip) alone suffices as evidence. Erasure from history doesn't imply erasure of the concept and erasure of the concept doesn't imply possible more fundamental aspects being erased. (E.g. in Owari no Chronicle "Will" can remain even if all concepts are erased)

So, wouldn't it be more accurately to how we practically treat things to say:
"The ability to regenerate after body, mind, soul and an even more fundamental aspect of existence is erased, such as history, narrative/plot, concept or information that are more fundamental than body, mind and soul."?

In terms of Executor N0's suggestion that would mean Mid-Godly would be regenerating from erasure of the first 2 levels of being and high-godly erasure of regenerating from anything more than that. Rather than high-godly being regeneration of an absolute nothingness that is probably impossible to proof. "Unkillable just by erasure, regardless of the potency" is just a claim that is IMO better avoided.
 
Yes, I talked a bit in my blog of how trying to still use this whole "all aspects of existence" could be very hard depending on the cosmology. I just tried to still use it because I know that trying to change the standards too much tends to be very hard here, and I was scared of making a suggestion that would change the current system "a bit too much". But if more people agrees with changing it from "all", to just above two levels of beings that normally is body-mind/soul then of course I'm fine with that.
 
"The ability to regenerate after body, mind, soul and an even more fundamental aspect of existence is erased, such as history, narrative/plot, concept or information that are more fundamental than body, mind and soul."

Fine by me, would reword it a bit just to fix grammar issues.
 
DontTalkDT's suggestion makes good sense to me as usual.
 
Overlord775 said:
just to ask since i'm sure it will be a ponit of contention, would "Essence" fall under this classification ?
Click to expand...
Depends on the in verse definition of essence and its relation to other things such as souls.
 
I agree with DT's suggestion and Prome's wording.
 
I haven't suggested a new wording yet. Here is something though.

"The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with an even more fundamental aspect of the character's existence, such as their place in the narrative, their entire history, or all the concepts behind their existence."
 
Oh mb, misread your post, thought you said you reworded it.

New wording still seems fine.
 
Promestein said:
I haven't suggested a new wording yet. Here is something though.

"The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with an even more fundamental aspect of the character's existence, such as their place in the narrative, their entire history, or all the concepts behind their existence."
Click to expand...
I would suggest to replace "all the concepts behind their existence" with "a concept needed for their existence". Otherwise one could understand it as implying that erasing a specific persons concept doesn't suffice, if for example the concept of humanity still exist. The concept of humanity could also be seen as behind a specific humans existence after all.
Aside from that I'm ok with that wording.

With that at least my issue would be taken care of. I guess what's left then is to clarify on erasure from history on the page and debate if/how we gonna integrate Executor N0's suggestions.
 
I will add my own suggestion, building DT's suggestion. I think adding information next to concept will still be useful for the text since there look to be no major issues on the information point.

I think replacing "a concept needed for their existence" with "a concept alternatively information needed for their existence".
 
That wording seems a bit awkward, I think "the underlying concept or information needed for their existence" might be better.
 
Thank you to everybody who are helping out.

So would something like this be appropriate then?

"The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one even more fundamental aspect of a character's existence, such as their place in the narrative, their entire history, or the underlying concept or information needed for their existence."

From a picky sentence flow perspective, it would be good if we could find an alternative to using the word "existence" twice, but I suppose that it may be necessary in this case.
 
Last edited:
Would going from "needed for their existence" to "needed for them to exist" provide better sentence flow?
 
"The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one even more fundamental aspect of a character's existence, such as their place in the narrative, their entire history, or the underlying concept or information needed for them to exist."
 
Last edited:
Should we use "concept" or "concepts"?
 
I agree with Prom's wording suggestion.

As for what Ant asked. How about swapping 1 of the existences with "being"?

Also there are 2 "or" in that sentence, remove 1 of them and replace it with a comma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Lycoris4812
How Does Regen Negation Work For Low Godly And Above?
Replies
2
Views
291
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
ArachDusa
How to stop being spaghetti
Replies
2
Views
380
Ar1216789
Ar1216789
BeTheWay1rst
  • Locked
Mid-Godly Regeneration Bleach GG no more ?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Arc7Kuroi
Arc7Kuroi
Nekobako
Regeneration from Concept type 2 destruction
Replies
5
Views
1K
Nekobako
Nekobako
Brogeefrong
Regeneration, Negation, and Erasure question
Replies
6
Views
1K
Brogeefrong
Brogeefrong
Back
Top