Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,230
- 10,555
Not for long it won't.
-
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.
Immunity from lack of something
- Thread starter Fixxed
- Start date
-
- Tags
- immunity resistance
- 3,462
- 1,943
- Thread starter
- #42
Bruh... i say completely transcendence. I know transcendence something by default is just brought you to 1 level of resistence
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,230
- 10,555
"Complete transcendence" is horseshit. There will always be another layer above where you are; There are infinite layers above 1-A, and high 1-A, and tier 0, so there will never come a point where you are totally immune to fuckery from higher layers. The tiering system, by design, does not have an upper limit, and will always extend infinitely upwards.
- 1,522
- 1,989
I disagree with what is being proposed. From what I understand, the main concern here is that a character that lacks a soul, for example, can be bound to a soul by another one. I believe that this should be considered more a power of the character that is able to bound the soul to a soulless being rather than a weakness of the latter.
The main difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is that Type 1 can be bound to the aspect that they lack, while the Type 2 can't, which would make the second stronger than the first. However, I disagree. It's not like Type 2 is "more lacking" than Type 1, it simply resists being bound to the aspect that they lacks, which would simply gives him a resistence to being "bound" to, for example, a soul. I don't see any reason as to why Type 2 should be any stronger Immunity than Type 1, since they both lacks an aspect in the same way.
And in general, I don't think there would be many characters that would qualify for Type 2, since it's an extremely specific case.
The main difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is that Type 1 can be bound to the aspect that they lack, while the Type 2 can't, which would make the second stronger than the first. However, I disagree. It's not like Type 2 is "more lacking" than Type 1, it simply resists being bound to the aspect that they lacks, which would simply gives him a resistence to being "bound" to, for example, a soul. I don't see any reason as to why Type 2 should be any stronger Immunity than Type 1, since they both lacks an aspect in the same way.
And in general, I don't think there would be many characters that would qualify for Type 2, since it's an extremely specific case.
- 3,462
- 1,943
- Thread starter
- #45
Of course there will be always another layer above, but it will be higher degree of ability. NEP 2 is completely lack of nonexistence, so any level of NEP 1 cannot reach it, but it not mean NEP 2 cannot have layer
The complete transcendence in here i mean just for atribute in it normal nature
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,230
- 10,555
So your own standards still wouldn't be immunity, because they can still be bound to higher layers. Got it.
- 3,462
- 1,943
- Thread starter
- #47
Not a power of character, because without any further explanation lack of something just yeah not have something not cannot have something. Why even we give a character more power when he do is common sense (if it not have something just make it have something), we not give atreus a more power because added soul to garm
Yeah i not meant to make the type 2 in here is "more lacking". I want make type 2 in here just like most NEP 2, that the character's nature of lack of something is still continue even if you added a atribute in that or his lacking something is refuse any existence
- 3,462
- 1,943
- Thread starter
- #49
Higher layer than what they complete transcendence of? Yes of course
Just a higher layer of normal ability, no. Even if it infinite^infinite^infinite until infinite layer
- 1,522
- 1,989
I don't agree. Bounding a soulless being to a soul should be a specific (and very useful) application of Soul Manipulation, and a being that is impossible to be bound to a soul should have resistence to that specific type of Soul Manipulation.
Lesser_Goddess_Alexia
She/Her- 687
- 410
I agree with the first option
- 3,462
- 1,943
- Thread starter
- #52
It is common sense that if it lack of something or not have something it mean yeah that just not have that, you just have to add something to it. And yeah we not give any stronger or specific power to character that can added something to character that lack of it (maybe creation, but it just for create part not the added part)
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,230
- 10,555
What the **** are you talking about?
- 7,003
- 1,871
I haven’t read much of this thread after the op. But I don’t think lacking something should be straight immunity no matter what. This is fiction, soul haxing a soulless creature can absolutely happen. Would it be incredibly stupid, absolutely, but it can totally happen.
Edit: Seriously, do you know how many completely inorganic characters (like straight rocks) have been poisoned in fiction. It’s hilariously common.
Edit: Seriously, do you know how many completely inorganic characters (like straight rocks) have been poisoned in fiction. It’s hilariously common.
- 11,401
- 1,763
A think he is trying to say this
A being is completely transcendent (over the dimension they have shown transcendence over) over x ability
Said being can't be effect by x ability even if x ability is infinitely layered in potency
- 1,522
- 1,989
It might be common sense, but it's not something that any character can do. Someone that can manipulate soul would never be able to bound a soulless being to a soul, unless they have the feat to do so. It's not a stronger application of Soul Manipulation, it's just a specific use of that ability, in the same way abilities like Soul Absorption, Soul Removal, Soul Destruction, ecc... Are specific application of Soul Manipulation. We do this with any ability, someone that can resist having they soul removed doesn't mean they resists their souls being destroyed, and in this case only because a character doesn't have a soul doesn't mean that a soul can't be added to them throught this specific usage of Soul Manipulation. A character that can't be bound to a soul would have resistence to that specific type of Soul Manipulation.
And I am using souls as an example, but this apply for any aspect.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,230
- 10,555
Yeah, I know that much. But they still aren't immune to hax from a higher dimension.
- 4,012
- 3,690
I would argue that you'd have to give an example of a souless being being soul haxxed because by the very nature of being souless, there isn't anything to manipulate with a character so it's not possible.
If characters are noted to not have something but then are afflicted as if they have it, if no explanation is provided, then we wouldn't treat as a case of negating immunity but instead as PIS or retconning.
Fiction can be stupid, but most stories do follow the basis of logic where we wouldn't come across cases of what OP is outlining
- 11,401
- 1,763
Oh I see, your confused on the part with Fixxed agreeing with you they aren't immune to hax from a higher dimension, but they can are still can be "immune". I think what Fixxed is referring to in his comment, is the kind of "immunity" that pertains only over the dimension they "transcend" over, not immunity that implies tier 0 hax no matter how layered "times whatever" won't effect them.
ShionAH
He/Him- 14,708
- 3,659
Sans : )
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,230
- 10,555
Yeah, because neither is a state of "true immunity". If lacking something doesn't grant immunity because of an extreme hypothetical that 99% of the time doesn't apply in any context, then being "transcendent" definitely isn't immunity because of how it can be bypassed by literally any higher dimensional hax. No matter how you break it down, lacking a soul will always be a better defense than "transcending" anything, even though I know VS debaters loooove using transcend as a buzzword.
Ultimately though, nothing changes the fact that this thread is just semantic bullshit, and pretty much any power could be nitpicked to death with similar logic. If we can nuke or severely limit one ability based on hypothetical nonsense, what stops us from doing it to others?
- 11,401
- 1,763
Well then that's a different problem (if you believe that) if you want to get that set straight here.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,230
- 10,555
I'm aware, but it's still related. I'll be tackling other instances of the transcendence issue elsewhere, eventually.
- 32,764
- 37,924
Ped2018
He/Him- 4,625
- 5,262
Translating in Fujiwara terms: never.
- 29,724
- 24,670
This thread makes no sense. You can't soul-hax a being that doesn't have a soul anymore than you can use biological manipulation to manipulate a pebble.
- 18,393
- 14,311
My position on the matter is impartial, as there are characters within the discussion who appear to manipulate nonexistent objects, and they have been granted the ability to manipulate nothingness. If one argues that it is impossible to manipulate something that one lacks, then the same principle should be applied to the concept of nothingness manipulation or void manipulation.
This also relates to the notion of nonexistent physiology, which presents a logical paradox. One can simultaneously not exist and exist. Notwithstanding, there are instances in which characters demonstrate the ability to influence or manipulate entities that do not possess any form of existence. If one intends to apply classic logic and fundamental formal systems to analyze such situations, fiction proves to be an unfavorable ground for such endeavors. This serves as a prime illustration, especially within the context of battleboarding, where this line of reasoning is widely accepted.
In general, the absence of a specific trait or attribute does not necessarily imply complete immunity or rejection of it for a character. Taking empathy as an example, although it is commonly considered a desirable trait, not everyone possesses it innately. However, the lack of empathy does not mean that the individual is entirely impervious to it or completely dismissive of it. They may still possess some capacity to comprehend and empathize with others' emotions to some extent, albeit less prominently compared to those who naturally possess empathy.
Nevertheless, my neutral stance stems from the recognition that if we consider the proposition "X lacks attribute Y," the classical interpretation would indicate that X does not possess attribute Y. Therefore, lacking something implies a total absence or negation of that attribute. However, when it comes to fiction, particularly when it involves imaginative or fantastical elements, the principles of classical logic may not always directly apply. It is not uncommon to encounter characters with contradictory abilities or traits. A character may lack a specific attribute by default, but due to unique circumstances or magical elements, they can still exhibit some degree of that attribute.
In summary, my perspective is a blend of opposing views. On one hand, there is room for the existence of such possibilities within the unrestricted realm of fiction, where boundless freedom allows for unconventional concepts. On the other hand, some may argue that it lacks logical coherence, similar to other abilities that also defy conventional reasoning. You could simply create an exception rule for those cases.
For the water analogy, I differ; it doesn't fully apply to the concept of immunity. Immunity, in the context of resistances or abilities, refers to a state where a character is completely unaffected by a specific ability or manipulation. It implies that the character possesses an absolute defense or inherent quality that prevents the ability from affecting them in any way. If we were to draw a parallel to immunity, it would mean that the glass has an inherent property that prevents it from ever being able to hold or contain water, regardless of external forces. It's not a matter of temporarily lacking water; it's a fundamental characteristic of the glass itself.
This also relates to the notion of nonexistent physiology, which presents a logical paradox. One can simultaneously not exist and exist. Notwithstanding, there are instances in which characters demonstrate the ability to influence or manipulate entities that do not possess any form of existence. If one intends to apply classic logic and fundamental formal systems to analyze such situations, fiction proves to be an unfavorable ground for such endeavors. This serves as a prime illustration, especially within the context of battleboarding, where this line of reasoning is widely accepted.
In general, the absence of a specific trait or attribute does not necessarily imply complete immunity or rejection of it for a character. Taking empathy as an example, although it is commonly considered a desirable trait, not everyone possesses it innately. However, the lack of empathy does not mean that the individual is entirely impervious to it or completely dismissive of it. They may still possess some capacity to comprehend and empathize with others' emotions to some extent, albeit less prominently compared to those who naturally possess empathy.
Nevertheless, my neutral stance stems from the recognition that if we consider the proposition "X lacks attribute Y," the classical interpretation would indicate that X does not possess attribute Y. Therefore, lacking something implies a total absence or negation of that attribute. However, when it comes to fiction, particularly when it involves imaginative or fantastical elements, the principles of classical logic may not always directly apply. It is not uncommon to encounter characters with contradictory abilities or traits. A character may lack a specific attribute by default, but due to unique circumstances or magical elements, they can still exhibit some degree of that attribute.
In summary, my perspective is a blend of opposing views. On one hand, there is room for the existence of such possibilities within the unrestricted realm of fiction, where boundless freedom allows for unconventional concepts. On the other hand, some may argue that it lacks logical coherence, similar to other abilities that also defy conventional reasoning. You could simply create an exception rule for those cases.
For the water analogy, I differ; it doesn't fully apply to the concept of immunity. Immunity, in the context of resistances or abilities, refers to a state where a character is completely unaffected by a specific ability or manipulation. It implies that the character possesses an absolute defense or inherent quality that prevents the ability from affecting them in any way. If we were to draw a parallel to immunity, it would mean that the glass has an inherent property that prevents it from ever being able to hold or contain water, regardless of external forces. It's not a matter of temporarily lacking water; it's a fundamental characteristic of the glass itself.
Last edited:
- 11,401
- 1,763
I do recall there are characters that have this or atleast I've heard people say they can do this in vs matches.
- 29,724
- 24,670
They'd be an exception, not the rule.
Some character may have the ability to make 2 + 2 = 5.
But on profiles for other verses we're not going to put: "2 + 2 = 4 (Although sometimes it can equal 5 in other verses)"
- 11,401
- 1,763
Ok so that is accepted. Then maybe not in the profile, but maybe a foot note in the section of the Resistance page might be nice to add regard such a case where they can effect those that lack.
- 18,393
- 14,311
I don't think this was OP's intention (the bolded part)
His intention revolves around the inclination to transform the concept of “exception” into a paradigm or criterion of sorts.
- 17,752
- 17,188
This thread is pointless. Garm as he is naturally is still immune to soul/mind manipulation due to lacking it entirely. If he's given a soul then he's no longer a character that lacks said aspects of his being.
At most, I'd just point out that this can happen in the Weakness section of a character but even then, it should be intuitive that you can overcome a character's lack of something by making it so that they have it.
At most, I'd just point out that this can happen in the Weakness section of a character but even then, it should be intuitive that you can overcome a character's lack of something by making it so that they have it.
- 4,464
- 3,008
I agree with what's been stated above in disagreeing with the OP. Sure I could give someone who lacks a soul, a soul in order to affect them. But I could also make someone who is non-existent, existent. This weakness can be applied to almost anything, even something as simple as giving an incorporeal being a corporeal body.
From what I can tell, you want to divide immunity, because of this weakness. However, in the end, this weakness is just using logic to find a way around a character's ability or state of being. In the end, if a character has a unique ability that makes them unable to be given a soul, as well as lacking a soul, then cool. But I feel like splitting immunity because of that possibility is unneeded, especially considering how rare immunity is atm outside of NEP.
From what I can tell, you want to divide immunity, because of this weakness. However, in the end, this weakness is just using logic to find a way around a character's ability or state of being. In the end, if a character has a unique ability that makes them unable to be given a soul, as well as lacking a soul, then cool. But I feel like splitting immunity because of that possibility is unneeded, especially considering how rare immunity is atm outside of NEP.
- 3,462
- 1,943
- Thread starter
- #74
Yeah that no what i mean in here, you cant soul hax beinf that not have soul of course, but you can added soul in him and then soul hax him, they just not have soul not cannot have soul, in this case they not fully unbound by what they lack of
Yeah that mean it not making garm or the being that lack of something not fully unbound or independent or immune from the atribute, because he can still bound by something they immune of
- 18,393
- 14,311
- 29,724
- 24,670
That's such a niche situation though that I don't think it belongs on our profiles.
- 3,462
- 1,943
- Thread starter
- #77
In fact by default lacking something not refuse the ability from affecting them in any way, that mean not completely unbound by the thing they lack of. Yeah if that glass have further explanation about refuse the water entirely, because it just not have water in it not cannot have water. The problem is they even cannot resist a additional of the atribute that they lacking,
If you directly manipulate what they lacking of, it will not affect them, but it will be different if you forced/added the atribute on them and then affect them. Yeah it not completely unaffected or prevent the ability from affecting them in any wah right
- 3,462
- 1,943
- Thread starter
- #78
Well it common sense not a niche situation at all, if you not have something for being manipulate just make you have something, i think thats what poeple and author will think if they write story and in this situation
- 18,393
- 14,311
Your understanding of the matter seems to be lacking, as the provision of something they lack does not necessarily negate the immunity they possess. Rather, it employs a reverse approach to address the deficiency by supplementing it. It is not inherently erroneous to state that "they don't fully lack it" since one can manipulate the situation and introduce the missing component.
I find it difficult to perceive your reasoning in this matter, and it appears that you may not have comprehended my previous statement.
I find it difficult to perceive your reasoning in this matter, and it appears that you may not have comprehended my previous statement.
This does not actually contradict the concept of immunity. Immunity can always be circumvented, and this technique represents one of those ways.
Incorrect, this does not align with the definition of immunity. To make such an assumption would be highly unfounded.
This aspect is neither encompassed within the definition of immunity, nor does it bear a direct correlation to it.
- 8,931
- 10,116
What Damage is saying that it's a very niche situation because tell me how many characters on the wiki and fiction in general have an ability where they can give a character a soul, and then tell me how many of them actually use that ability in combat. This is basically like wanting to remove resistances from every single profile just because Resistance Negation is an ability that exists.
Similar threads
