Immunity from lack of something

[TheGreatJedi13]

Wouldn't that require forcing the aspect to become part of them pretty sure that is potency and strength if hax and less of a weakness of lacking.

A robot having a soul or being forced to have a soul and make fundamental to its existence is different from a robot being haxed by soul hax

There is also transcendence towards it that it becomes irrelevant to you even if applied or forced upon but that us more of a transduality thing now

 

[Planck69]

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.

Other than Atreus, I honestly can't think of any.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Wouldn't that require forcing the aspect to become part of them pretty sure that is potency and strength if hax and less of a weakness of lacking.

Yes it requires, and I am confused of what OP is trying to suggest here.

A robot having a soul or being forced to have a soul and make fundamental to its existence is different from a robot being haxed by soul hax

Which I mentioned it multiple times, and he is not getting this point.

There is also transcendence towards it that it becomes irrelevant to you even if applied or forced upon but that us more of a transduality thing now

I don't know why is this related to this conversation, in while OP, he did not mention of any “transcendence” or I missed something?

 

[Huesito88]

Yes it requires, and I am confused of what OP is trying to suggest here.

Which I mentioned it multiple times, and he is not getting this point.

I don't know why is this related to this conversation, in while OP, he did not mention of any “transcendence” or I missed something?

Right here Dread

"
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)"

 

[ImmortalDread]

I appreciate the suggestion being put forward; however, I remain unconvinced by the underlying reasoning. To be more specific, the reasoning is based on an inaccurate analogy.

Furthermore, the initial statement contains a contradiction. “Lesser immunity” is described as both unbounded and bound by something simultaneously, which is logically inconsistent.

 

[Lilixa]

Would be better if this thread focus on soul immunity, rather than all possible type of immunity

 

[Keeweed]

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.

Again, fiction isn’t real life, it doesn’t need to make sense. Nothing stops a writer from saying: character A has no soul but character b can still attack his soul.

It doesn’t make any sense but it’s what happens and what is stated in the story. And it could be stated and shown over and over again. You talk about people manipulating the biology of a pebble, but do you know how many rocks in fiction have been poisoned to death before.

Edit: Haven’t read much of the thread after this, so sorry if I’m missing some discussion.

Edit: Stepping back from souls for a second. Let’s go into more generic and common examples. How many times have you seen a 100% purely inorganic character die because they got stabbed once by a sword, how many times have they been poisoned, how many times have they bleed.

 

[ImmortalDread]

According to your argument, you contend that standards should not be upheld because fiction possesses unlimited freedom to defy logic. This is not how it works.

Classical logic is commonly regarded as the foundational framework for assessing contexts, unless the verse or narrative explicitly establishes a deliberate violation of the fundamental principles of classical formal logic.

 

[Damage3245]

Again, fiction isn’t real life, it doesn’t need to make sense. Nothing stops a writer from saying: character A has no soul but character b can still his soul.

It doesn’t make any sense but it’s what happens and what is stated in the story. And it could be stated and shown over and over again. You talk about people manipulating the biology of a pebble, but do you know how many rocks in fiction have been poisoned to death before.

By that logic there's no point in having standards at all.

 

[Keeweed]

That’s missing the point though. I know it’s absolutely moronic in a logical sense, but the fact is that it can, and often does happen. Not often with soul manipulation, but all the freaking time with inorganic characters in general. I’ve seen hundreds of rocks, dolls, and robots in fiction bleed, die from normal human injuries, get poisoned, be even manipulated by biological manipulation. Those examples happen all the time. Fiction can be stupid, so giving immunity despite how fiction can completely ignore the logic behind it (many times often) doesn’t set right with me. I get why in real life it would be immunity, fiction often doesn’t care.

 

[Keeweed]

To clarify, I think immunity should only apply to something that would make you immune to any showcase of a power throughout all of fiction, that’s not possible because fiction can ignore any way to achieve that realistically. You aren’t straight fully immune when multiple other characters can indeed effect you with something you don’t actually even have.

 

[Damage3245]

To clarify, I think immunity should only apply to something that would make you immune to any showcase of a power throughout all of fiction, that’s not possible because fiction can ignore any way to achieve that realistically. You aren’t straight fully immune when multiple other characters can indeed effect you in a way you don’t actually have.

We don't judge verses by the internal mechanics of other verses.

Say there's a character who can resist Spatial Manipulation through sheer willpower. Would we then have to put on every single character's profile who has Spatial Manipulation: This ability can be resisted by anyone with sufficiently high willpower. ?

If a character in their own verse is immune to biological manipulation because they're not biological, then I don't care if random character from random verse can use their own version of biological manipulation to turn a pebble into a squirrel. It's just not worth consideration and I'd sooner ignore it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The notion that such occurrences or paradoxical instances are infrequent has already been expressed by Damage. Damage did not outright reject the possibility; rather, he declined to establish it as a universal rule. This can be attributed to the mere nature of an intern-in-verse mechanic or an in-verse setting framework.

 

[Keeweed]

That’s a different scenario. That’s a weakness of that verse’s spatial manipulation. But immunity in this case is referring to the rest of the site. It is stating, don’t bother with soul manipulation they are absolutely truly immune to it. That isn’t the case though because it’s absolutely possible for a character to be able to soul hax something soulless. Or, way more common, possible for someone to poison a rock.

However, reading Immortal’s post does put it in a way I can pretty well understand.

So instead of changing immunity on people’s profiles, can we just acknowledge that immunity due to lacking something won’t truly be immunity 100% of the time (because fiction can be goofy and absolutely have someone hit your soul or <insert anything here> despite you just not even having one). Like have that be a personal note to keep in mind.

 

[Huesito88]

That’s a different scenario. That’s a weakness of that verse’s spatial manipulation. But immunity in this case is referring to the rest of the site. It is stating, don’t bother with soul manipulation they are absolutely truly immune to it. That isn’t the case though because it’s absolutely possible for a character to be able to soul hax something soulless. Or, way more common, possible for someone to poison a rock.

However, reading Immortal’s post does put it in a way I can pretty well understand.

So instead of changing immunity on people’s profiles, can we just acknowledge that immunity due to lacking something won’t truly be immunity 100% of the time (because fiction can be goofy and absolutely have someone hit your soul or <insert anything here> despite you just not even having one). Like have that be a personal note to keep in mind.

This adding it in the resistance page

 

[ImmortalDread]

It stated that don't bother using soul manipulation because the guy don't even have soul. Giving him a soul to that guy won't contradict the immunity he had.
Also, sure the fiction is goofy, I am still seeking for a single instance that supports this argument.

 

[Huesito88]

It stated that don't bother using soul manipulation because the guy don't even have soul. Giving him a soul to that guy won't contradict the immunity he had.
Also, sure the fiction is goofy, I am still seeking for a single instance that supports this argument.

It not giving him a soul it's Manipulating his soul even though he has no soul

 

[Keeweed]

I can’t think of any examples when it comes to souls on the top of my head. But Pokémon, Dark Souls, Terraria, Bloodborne, and many other series have straight up rocks, robots, and dolls be able to die from poison. Despite lacking any internal systems that could be poisoned.

Plus it doesn’t matter if there isn’t an example right now (when there is for other things). There can be an example, it can happen, and nothing stops it from happening. Immunity being absolute from lacking something isn’t absolute because there is a known scenario where it can fail (and again with souls not many examples, but poison and bleeding has it happen all the time).

 

[Lesser_Goddess_Alexia]

I used to be confused with Immo type 5

Lack of Death = Immo type 5
Lack of Death ≠ Immunity To Death Manipulation

Even though it's obvious that it's a Lack of Something (which is Death). And to get Immunity you need to lack of something.

Someone said that the character can force death on the character, but what if this is not in the verse of the immo type 5 character?

If an Immo type 5 character is never forced to have death in the verse, does that still make the character not have Immunity to death manipulation?

 

[ImmortalDread]

It not giving him a soul it's Manipulating his soul even though he has no soul

OP literally used water analogy the way I described.

I can’t think of any examples when it comes to souls on the top of my head. But Pokémon, Dark Souls, Terraria, Bloodborne, and many other series have straight up rocks, robots, and dolls be able to die from poison. Despite lacking any internal systems that could be poisoned.

Plus it doesn’t matter if there isn’t an example right now (when there is for other things). There can be an example, it can happen, and nothing stops it from happening. Immunity being absolute from lacking something isn’t absolute because there is a known scenario where it can fail (and again with souls not many examples, but poison and bleeding has it happen all the time).

It does. We are now creating a whole universal rule for a nonexistent instance, hell we are arguing over something that it never occurred in any discussion or verse.
Don't you see the pointlessness in the whole topic?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Lack of Death = Immo type 5
Lack of Death ≠ Immunity To Death Manipulation

In my opinion, they are both the same.

 

[Keeweed]

No, soul stuff has (arguably) never happened.

Many other powers do this all the time. Fiction has had rocks (something that lacks blood and a biological system to be poisoned) bleed and be poisoned many times.

It’s not as exotic of a power, but it happens.

Also I was told Fairytale had someone mind control a rock (a regular plain old rock last I checked).

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am not sure of the context, I can't really discuss if you are giving me an instance without scans.

 

[Keeweed]

Okay, I’ll be back once I get home from work.

Edit: I know many examples of rocks bleeding, I’ll just need to gather them up. It doesn’t matter that the power isn’t super exotic like soul manipulation it’s bloodless things bleeding.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I would imagine those instances are simply some sarcastic presentation or comedic effects.

 

[Keeweed]

No the examples I’m thinking of are taken seriously. The games have enemies that are immune to poison and bleeding yet don’t give the same resistances to characters literally made of rock or metal.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Characters are made of stones or metals, or they are metal or stones?

 

[Keeweed]

I meant that some games have robot enemies, and there can be enemies like crystal golems or rock monsters that can bleed. I can see how the last statement can be interpreted as confusion over what a specific creature could be. But I was referring to multiple creatures being different materials. I’m a couple of hours away from home, just want to make that clear. I work far away.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Why shouldn't we assume by default that the characters you mentioned actually have blood within the context of the story? If they displayed blood while bleeding, it sounds illogical to assume they had immunity at the beginning.

 

[Keeweed]

Because we can see and are told what they are made of. In terraria the earth creatures literally shatter apart upon death to reveal they are entirely rocks. And in dark souls we can see the crystal golems are completely made out of crystals (and are told because an actual person was trapped in one and they were just surrounded by crystal).

 

[ImmortalDread]

This was not my argument. What they are made of does not really contradicts that they have blood at the start. Also for the latter, I need more context.

 

[Keeweed]

Well as said, I’ll gather up scans and stuff when I get back home. So give me some time for that. I’m getting busy now so I’ll truly be back later.

 

[Lilixa]

I can’t think of any examples when it comes to souls on the top of my head. But Pokémon, Dark Souls, Terraria, Bloodborne, and many other series have straight up rocks, robots, and dolls be able to die from poison. Despite lacking any internal systems that could be poisoned.

Plus it doesn’t matter if there isn’t an example right now (when there is for other things). There can be an example, it can happen, and nothing stops it from happening. Immunity being absolute from lacking something isn’t absolute because there is a known scenario where it can fail (and again with souls not many examples, but poison and bleeding has it happen all the time).

the thing is, without understand semantics, context, and underlying system, rock died to poison could be due to game mechanics itself. Essentially rock died due to it's HP reduce to zero, not because rock died due to poison literally

 

[ImmortalDread]

the thing is, without understand semantics, context, and underlying system, rock died to poison could be due to game mechanics itself. Essentially rock died due to it's HP reduce to zero, not because rock died due to poison literally

Thanks for the elaboration.

 

[Lilixa]

To elaborate more, characters in 3D Video games (ex : dark souls, etc) are nothing more than topological mesh and blood coming from them are only VFX which got triggered due to game logic programming stuff. Interpreting rock died due to poison is problematic since it's based our perception of the game visual not the underlying principle of game logic.

I can easily make rock died due to poison thing in Autodesk Maya. Yeah it doesn't make any sense but it's 100% possible if your imagination is wild enough.

 

[Propellus]

This thread doesn't make sense to me one bit. Lack of something in general does make solid sense to have immunity to, that's like saying I could mindhax/soulhax a robot without any evidence of doing so. And even then, the burden of proof would be onto you unless if the other has evidence of affecting type 2 inorganic beings that way.

 

[Fixxed]

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.

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.

Dont know bruh, but immunity in medical, immunity to some virus mean if there are virus that being added to your body you will immune that

If it like death manipulation that most mechanic of the ability is forced the death it self to being than just triggered the death in being, lack of death or immunity to death is being useless

 

[ImmortalDread]

...

He really involved medical perspective. I can't.

 

[Fixxed]

This thread doesn't make sense to me one bit. Lack of something in general does make solid sense to have immunity to, that's like saying I could mindhax/soulhax a robot without any evidence of doing so. And even then, the burden of proof would be onto you unless if the other has evidence of affecting type 2 inorganic beings that way.

I dont know bruh. Why most people think what i mean in here is lack of something is not immunity to what they lack of. That not what the thread mean

 

[Fixxed]

...

He really involved medical perspective. I can't.

Of course because we talking about immunity in general