Immunity from lack of something

[Fixxed]

In resistence's page, it write that immunity will be gived if charater lack the atribute for be manipulated

But lack of something by default not give the character completely immune of something they lack of, or not completely refuse the atribute

Like garm in GoW he lack soul that given him the immunity from soul manipulation, but he still can have soul not completely immunity or unbound by soul. And yeah we not give atreus a resistance or immunity negation because of he give soul to garm

Or tiamat in fate that lack of death, but she still can have death if it being forced to her, and king hassan still not have resistance or immunity negation after forced death to her

Lack of something by default is just like a empty shell, i can't manipulate something because the character lack of it, but doesnt mean i cannot forced that character for have it and then manipulated it, the character not completely immune or refuse something they lack of
Like i have glass that empty of water, i cannot drink water in that glass because there are no water, but it doesnt mean i cannot give it water and then drink

It a bit contradict with the word immunity it self, because if you still can be affect from something it mean you not immune to it, you not even resist to it

In this thread i want we make clear about immunity, so i have 2 option in here

Option 1
Seperate immunity to 2 piece
1. Lesser immunity. Just lack of, outside, unbound, transcend something but not completely refuse that, in other word still can be bound by it
2. Immunity. Completely unaffected by something, make it completely refuse any kind of manipulation of something (it can be lack of something but with further proof)

Option 2
Give limited immunity to any character that just stated lack of something without any further explanation and proof

I think it will also clear the problem in BDE page, that type 1 and 2 not have any superiority because that 2 type just give immunity to the character

 

[Barbar01]

Make sense, Agree

 

[AKUTO123]

Make sense

 

[Rendynoc0unter]

yes

 

[Georredannea15]

Lacking something in yourself means that you are immune to attack from the direction in which you lack (unless otherwise stated in the verse), such as a robot is immune to soul manipulation because it lacks a soul.

Or as Garm is immune to soul and mind manipulation because it lacks soul and mind and is not affected in any way.

This is no different than any immunity. Of course it all depends on the context of the verse, but I disagree with OP.

Because technically if you are outside of something, completely transcending it, devoid of it, or completely purified from it, you are completely unaffected by it.

 

[Fixxed]

Lacking something in yourself means that you are immune to attack from the direction in which you lack (unless otherwise stated in the verse), such as a robot is immune to soul manipulation because it lacks a soul.

Or as Garm is immune to soul and mind manipulation because it lacks soul and mind and is not affected in any way.

This is no different than any immunity. Of course it all depends on the context of the verse, but I disagree with OP.

Because technically if you are outside of something, completely transcending it, devoid of it, or completely purified from it, you are completely unaffected by it.

Lack of something it means just not have that thing not necesarry mean cannot have that thing by default, in this case the verse that must prove if it unaffected or completely unbound by that atribute

 

[KntolRicat]

Do you think we can also add some aspects to NEP 2 character ?

 

[Fixxed]

Do you think we can also add some aspects to NEP 2 character ?

Why?

 

[Georredannea15]

Lack of something it means just not have that thing not necesarry mean cannot have that thing by default, in this case the verse that must prove if it unaffected or completely unbound by that atribute

In fact, the same case for non-duality... Anyway

The standards do not directly immunise you against being lack of a soul or being completely purification of your soul. For this additionally requires a feat that you are not affected by soul manipulation, only then can you be immune. That's why I don't agree with the division of immunity into 2 parts,

because a feat is already needed in case of any purification or lack.

 

[Fixxed]

The standards do not directly immunise you against being lack of a soul or being completely purification of your soul. For this additionally requires a feat that you are not affected by soul manipulation, only then can you be immune. That's why I don't agree with the division of immunity into 2 parts,

No, if you can prove if it lack of something you have immunity you not have to prove it are not affected by that manipulation

And yeah not make it completely refuse/resist if you add something that it lack of in it

 

[KntolRicat]

Why?

just give them some aspect that they lack like example if he is nep nature 2 aspect 4 just add them infromation, cuz as long it's still not independent we can add something that they lack off

 

[Georredannea15]

No, if you can prove if it lack of something you have immunity you not have to prove it are not affected by that manipulation

And yeah not make it completely refuse/resist if you add something that it lack of in it

Uhhh... no, by current standards you have to prove it. If you don't have to prove it, then the only point I agree with the OP on is the feat requirement. Other than that, I strongly disagree with the division of immunity into 2.

 

[ShionAH]

I am confused by the OP. How is not having a soul not immunity to soul hax? What ability would someone who can negate this immunity get?

 

[KntolRicat]

I am confused by the OP. How is not having a soul not immunity to soul hax? What ability would someone who can negate this immunity get?

the op want to point that a souless character could be still added soul and beet him up

 

[ShionAH]

the op want to point that a souless character could be still added soul and beet him up

Thats common sense though, what about characters who negate immunity with no explanation?

 

[KntolRicat]

Thats common sense though?

Yeah but the type 2 immunity makes the character also can't be added by soul even if him being lack of soul

what about characters who negate immunity with no explanation?

Well it's depends on the verse, since in some fiction there is character that could make someone who lack off pain and could feel the pain after getting punched

 

[ShionAH]

Well it's depends on the verse, since in some fiction there is character that could make someone who lack off pain and could feel the pain after getting punched

If a character can soul hax a character without a soul that would be Immunity Negation?

 

[KntolRicat]

If a character can soul hax a character without a soul that would be Immunity Negation?

yes

 

[Georredannea15]

If a character can soul hax a character without a soul that would be Immunity Negation?

Not directly, If a character lack of a soul needs feat about being unaffected by the soul haxs.

 

[ShionAH]

Not directly, If a character lack of a soul needs feat about being unaffected by the soul haxs.

If someone soul haxes like a literal stone what would that grant then?

 

[KntolRicat]

Not directly, If a character lack of a soul needs feat about being unaffected by the soul haxs.

Do you mean by adding them a soul or by manipulating through it, if the 1st case well it's not true, since u doesn't need feats to be unaffected to some thing u lack to be immune, if u lack that aspect u are probably immune by that

 

[Georredannea15]

If someone soul haxes like a literal stone what would that grant then?

Frankly, I'm not sure that gives anything away. Because characters without a soul can receive soul transfer from the outside with another power. There was an example of a lucifer for this.

 

[Fixxed]

Uhhh... no, by current standards you have to prove it. If you don't have to prove it, then the only point I agree with the OP on is the feat requirement. Other than that, I strongly disagree with the division of immunity into 2.

It is no, if you have a proof if character lack of something then it is immunity

I am confused by the OP. How is not having a soul not immunity to soul hax? What ability would someone who can negate this immunity get?

I say it not completely immune, because it can still be bound by what they lack of

If a character can soul hax a character without a soul that would be Immunity Negation?

Yes. But what i mean in here is, character that lack of something but still can be added that something in. Make it not completely unbound or immune

 

[Fixxed]

just give them some aspect that they lack like example if he is nep nature 2 aspect 4 just add them infromation, cuz as long it's still not independent we can add something that they lack off

Most of NEP 2 is not just lack of but also predecing and opposing or refuse the existence it self, make it impossible for add existence to it, it not like NEP 1. And yeah it lack of existence and nonexistence

Idealistic Nonexistence: The character doesn't exist in a sense further beyond conventional nonexistence. In terms of binary, this would be something that is neither 1 nor 0, where 1 is existence and 0 is nonexistence. Characters of this type often have some low degree of Transduality due to their lack of binary existence. Characters of this type have to behave at least as nonexistent as those with Material Nonexistence, but might display even further showings such as preceding or opposing existence.

 

[Georredannea15]

It is no, if you have a proof if character lack of something then it is immunity

Uhhh... I think the staff will make the same statement in this regard. You have to extra feat bullshit for immunity.

 

[PhantomØ4]

Semantics: The Thread. Holy shit.

 

[Andika_CL_atmadja]

Option 1
Seperate immunity to 2 piece
1. Lesser immunity. Just lack of, outside, unbound, transcend something but not completely refuse that, in other word still can be bound by it
2. Immunity. Completely unaffected by something, make it completely refuse any kind of manipulation of something (it can be lack of something but with further proof)

In God of War 2018, there are enemies called "soul eater" which functioning based on logical premise of "constantly devouring/destroying souls due to it's nature of completely lacking of soul". Can this be qualified for complete immunity of soul manip ? (If this CRT is accepted of course)

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

In resistence's page, it write that immunity will be gived if charater lack the atribute for be manipulated

But lack of something by default not give the character completely immune of something they lack of, or not completely refuse the atribute

Like garm in GoW he lack soul that given him the immunity from soul manipulation, but he still can have soul not completely immunity or unbound by soul. And yeah we not give atreus a resistance or immunity negation because of he give soul to garm

Or tiamat in fate that lack of death, but she still can have death if it being forced to her, and king hassan still not have resistance or immunity negation after forced death to her

Lack of something by default is just like a empty shell, i can't manipulate something because the character lack of it, but doesnt mean i cannot forced that character for have it and then manipulated it, the character not completely immune or refuse something they lack of
Like i have glass that empty of water, i cannot drink water in that glass because there are no water, but it doesnt mean i cannot give it water and then drink

It a bit contradict with the word immunity it self, because if you still can be affect from something it mean you not immune to it, you not even resist to it

In this thread i want we make clear about immunity, so i have 2 option in here

Option 1
Seperate immunity to 2 piece
1. Lesser immunity. Just lack of, outside, unbound, transcend something but not completely refuse that, in other word still can be bound by it
2. Immunity. Completely unaffected by something, make it completely refuse any kind of manipulation of something (it can be lack of something but with further proof)

Option 2
Give limited immunity to any character that just stated lack of something without any further explanation and proof

I think it will also clear the problem in BDE page, that type 1 and 2 not have any superiority because that 2 type just give immunity to the character

Disagree.

A character without a soul is immune to soul manipulation; When they are given a soul through external means, they are no longer a character without a soul, and are therefore not immune. So, in any case where a character does lack a soul - regardless of whether or not they can be "given" one, ignoring how niche that is - they would still have immunity, which is what we should index, and NOT the hypothetical scenario of them gaining a soul in the future (which again, ranges from "highly unlikely" to "******* impossible").

This would be like removing resistances on the basis of other characters removing those resistances. It's just absurd.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Actually, one thing I'd like to know is which characters would even qualify for the new version of immunity you've proposed, since it seems a lot like an NLF.

 

[Barbar01]

I am confused by the OP. How is not having a soul not immunity to soul hax? What ability would someone who can negate this immunity get?

What the OP is trying to say is that having no soul doesn't mean your soul can never exist.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

What the OP is trying to say is that having no soul doesn't mean your soul can never exist.

Yeah, and that wouldn't disqualify immunity. We index characters on what they are, not what they might become.

For instance, there's a Touhou character whose NEP could hypothetically be undone by forcefully reversing the process that made her nonexistent to begin with. Of course, we still give her NEP because that whole scenario is hypothetical, and not all that likely to begin with.

 

[Andika_CL_atmadja]

well giving someone soul definitely can be story specific factors which not relevant to versus battle. I mean in hypothetical versus battle, are there characters that literally giving souls to enemies or Garm as offensive attack ? (in-characters mindset is considered)

 

[Fixxed]

Disagree.

A character without a soul is immune to soul manipulation; When they are given a soul through external means, they are no longer a character without a soul, and are therefore not immune. So, in any case where a character does lack a soul - regardless of whether or not they can be "given" one, ignoring how niche that is - they would still have immunity, which is what we should index, and NOT the hypothetical scenario of them gaining a soul in the future (which again, ranges from "highly unlikely" to "******* impossible").

This would be like removing resistances on the basis of other characters removing those resistances. It's just absurd.

Is i even say if character just lack of something that character not have immunity??? I say they not completely immune or refuse the atribute they lack of. If they still can be bound by that atribute it mean they not completely immune from that. And i dont know why the hypothetical scenario in future be brought in here, when i just explain if lack of something just mean not have something not cannot have something

Actually, one thing I'd like to know is which characters would even qualify for the new version of immunity you've proposed, since it seems a lot like an NLF.

Bruh... all the character that have prove of impossible for affect him, completely independent from the atribute

Overvoid lurk the resistence should be immunity because being opposed and undeleteble

 

[Fixxed]

Yeah, and that wouldn't disqualify immunity. We index characters on what they are, not what they might become.

For instance, there's a Touhou character whose NEP could hypothetically be undone by forcefully reversing the process that made her nonexistent to begin with. Of course, we still give her NEP because that whole scenario is hypothetical, and not all that likely to begin with.

Bruh when i say lack of something diqualify immunity?

 

[Fixxed]

In God of War 2018, there are enemies called "soul eater" which functioning based on logical premise of "constantly devouring/destroying souls due to it's nature of completely lacking of soul". Can this be qualified for complete immunity of soul manip ? (If this CRT is accepted of course)

Maybe, because they continue lack of soul when the soul being added

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I'll keep responding to this later but ngl I ******* hate how people here think lacking something is unimpressive. Just think about it for once, please.

 

[Fixxed]

I'll keep responding to this later but ngl I ******* hate how people here think lacking something is unimpressive. Just think about it for once, please.

I dont think it unimpressive, but i think more unimpressive is if that character completely transcended from a thing, make impossible for affect him, by any extended of that power it is creation, manipulation, or destroying

 

[Huesito88]

I dont think it unimpressive, but i think more unimpressive is if that character completely transcended from a thing, make impossible for affect him, by any extended of that power it is creation, manipulation, or destroying

Basically the same "difference" between Non duality and Trans duality?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I dont think it unimpressive, but i think more unimpressive is if that character completely transcended from a thing, make impossible for affect him, by any extended of that power it is creation, manipulation, or destroying

Transcendence isn't even that impressive, because you only transcend things up to the level you've shown. The lack of something is completely disconnected from dimensionality.

However, if you lack something, it can't be manipulated. End of story. A transcendent being's mind still exists, albeit on a higher plane, so it can still be manipulated. A being who lacks a mind simply doesn't have one to manipulate to begin with.

 

[Fixxed]

Basically the same "difference" between Non duality and Trans duality?

If the nonduality is being accepted, i think yes
Because i think it same like BDE