Invulnerability: Let's talk about it.

[StretchSebe]

The current iteration of the invulnerability page is... lacking, to say the least.

No offense to whoever made it. But there's a lot more to invulnerability than 'durability' and being wary of 'No Limits Fallacy.' In fact, there's many ways Invulnerability is limited.

So, I worked on a rough draft in a blog for a potential update/revamp to the page, with:

• A more detailed, and upfront explanation of invulnerability and it's major limitations.
• Common types across fictions, notes on specific points (such as how to equalize certain kinds of nigh-invulnerability from one verse to another), and character examples for each.
• A Limitations section going into both non-physical ways an invulnerable character can be dealt with, and even physical ways.

I'm sure there are changes I should make; and places I could more succinctly explain things. Also maybe better examples that others are aware of for certain types. Hell, even a type or two I could add. But I think this is in a good enough state to go off of, and fix potential issues with from here.

Agree: Vzearr, Duedate8898 (?), Wikisource, Blunt_Claw, BrackishBrineBroth

Disagree: Hypertornado099

 

[Vzearr]

Agree with the OP.

 

[Duedate8898]

I am a fan of the limitation section and the summary, but you should really just get rid of the types. The addition of types only serves to complicate the ability when it is a simple one in practice and the variations you have listed are far more about the mechanics of how one gains invulnerability than how the power itself varies.

 

[Sir_Marvulous]

What is it with these page revisions and organizing the power by overcomplicated types rather than just keeping it simple so enough verses can qualify?

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Yeah, even if the Invulnerability is gained through power-ups or through activation, the power is still Invulnerability.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Please stop trying to categorize every single power into a type. It takes no effort on the page maker or revision editor to just explain in depth how the invulnerability works. Attempting to classify it in boxes only serves to needlessly complicate the power and harder to get it to begin with.

 

[Thelastmlg]

While i think certain powers like existence erasure deserve types as they have “levels” to it, invulnerability definitely doesn’t need them, as those levels are just talking about mechanics on “why you have invulnerability” and not “how good is it” or “it is completely different than this one” besides maybe type 5

Type 1 is just invulnerability “within” or “via”

Type 2 is type 1 except the user can activacte it at will

Type 3 is just invulnerability + weakness that should go to the weakness section

Type 4 is literally the same thing as type 3

Type 5 is again, same as type 3, it being conceptual, existential, etc doesn’t stop it from being invulnerability, at best it makes it harder to negate, but that doesn’t warrant a different type

 

[Hypertornado099]

Disagree for Milly and thelastmlg's reasons

At least half of the examples you listed are just durability and resistance

 

[ShionAH]

Remove the Types

 

[ImmortalDread]

Those types already exists. The way I understand that it should be added in the ability justification.

Like type 1 is other fancy way to say "limited" which can be noted in the profile itself.

 

[Dust_Collector]

I also agree that we don't need types but do like adding in the limitations.

Also remove Triforce of Power from any examples that shit ain't granting invulnerability of any kind lol

 

[Wikisource]

I agree, and not only the invulnerability page but also some other pages should be changed again. But the mods seem busy with many things.

 

[SheevShezarrine]

I'm ngl the types ain't gonna fly on account of them being more focused on means of acquisition than the actual form of Invulnerability granted -- drafts proposing a p&a page be formatted by type have been rejected for less convoluted reasons. The limitations section is a solid improvement, however.

 

[Blunt_Claw]

Types bad. Everything else is fine I guess.

 

[BrackishBrineBroth]

Agreed with the better description; disagree with the addition of types.

 

[StretchSebe]

Jeez, I'll get rid of the types. What's wrong with such categorization? I see it on a variety of Powers/Abilities pages, and for good reasons. Feel like Invulnerability has enough variance between fictions that it warrants such :0

I know the ability is simple, but I just thought that types would help in a similar way to Immortality or Regeneration in explaining various differences and individual cases/scenarios in which the ability comes up in media. Especially with a case like nigh-invulnerability, and how that can actually be properly verse equalized.

On that, before I do, would everyone be fine if I at least keep some of the explanations for things like nigh-invulnerability and verse equalization?

Feel like it's something I see messed up a lot, or actually where a lot of the misconceptions of 'no limits fallacy' comes into play even though verse equalization in such cases is very possible, and doesn't have to be functional invulnerability when there is a clear method of equalizing such weaknesses/exploits in such nigh-invulnerability (again, Ganondorf w/ Triforce of Power and Aku should both be weak to sacred/blessed/holy weapons, despite the circumstances of their verses having such specific weapons that meet such criteria).

 

[Bobsican]

Good premise but everything could have been done better as others said, yeah.
I also think the image doesn't have to be changed from the current one, the new proposed image falls back on the classic mistake of grabbing a random image of a character with the ability over actually displaying the ability in action.

 

[StretchSebe]

Good premise but everything could have been done better as others said, yeah.
I also think the image doesn't have to be changed from the current one, the new proposed image falls back on the classic mistake of grabbing a random image of a character with the ability over actually displaying the ability in action.

Gideon is actually a very notable, contemporary example: As an example of a character who uses invulnerability to great effect (alongside his magic), and both in how well the power can be used, as well as the limits it can have. While normally an upside in his fights with other beings of comparable magic/power, in a battle in recent lore, a demon grappled him well enough to get him on the ground, and held his face in a shallow puddle. The only reason the demon didn't drown him right there was because he wanted to demoralize him, displaying how such a powerful planeswalker, and even one invulnerable was still 'beneath' him quite literally.

It's true that it doesn't actively show this, but in the line of keeping some notes and stuff, maybe instead I could provide that? If not acceptable, I can just use the original gif. Then I'd definitely need to keep in notes and stuff on nigh-invulnerability though.

 

[Blunt_Claw]

What's wrong with such categorization?

Because there aren't significant diffrences between types.

Type 1 is just invulnerability with/via something.
Type 2 is just invulnerability but it's toggleable.
Type 3 is just invulnerability but with a weakness.
Types 4 and 5 are deadass the same thing. The character is just always invulnerable,it doesn't matter if it's an ability they acquired or a part of their physiology.

Notice how the diffences aren't what invulnerability actually does?

Compare this with Immortality types and Acausality types where the type of said abilities change what that ability actually does.
Characters with Immortality type 1 can still be killed normally while characters with type 5 are actually unkillable.
Every type of Acausality does a completely different thing.

Your invulnerability types are bad not only because the diffrences aren't significant enough to warrant assigning types to them but also because we already have ways to signify said diffrences.

 

[StretchSebe]

Your invulnerability types are bad not only because the diffrences aren't significant enough to warrant assigning types to them but also because we already have ways to signify said diffrences.

Beg to differ that they're 'bad,' but since it's so unanimous, I will remove the types.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Beg to differ that they're 'bad,' but since it's so unanimous, I will remove the types.

While types don't really work, showing examples of those types isn't bad.

It's true that it doesn't actively show this

Which is what the issue is. Just a picture doesn't show the power, while the previous example at least shows a character tanking stuff.

 

[StretchSebe]

Updated blog.

The types are gone, and there is a subsection in limitations for Nigh-Invulnerability now.

Which is what the issue is. Just a picture doesn't show the power, while the previous example at least shows a character tanking stuff.

Will revert the image to the character with nigh-invulnerability, and provide a little explanation for such.

 

[StretchSebe]

While types don't really work, showing examples of those types isn't bad.

Without the types, what examples would I provide beyond basic invulnerability for characters?

 

[Qawsedf234]

The types are gone, and there is a subsection in limitations for Nigh-Invulnerability now.

I would probably get rid of the physical mention. Invulnerability can be limited to physical damage, but it can also just mean a complete immunity to any direct attack like Siberian.

 

[StretchSebe]

I would probably get rid of the physical mention. Invulnerability can be limited to physical damage, but it can also just mean a complete immunity to any direct attack like Siberian.

I'm not sure what the distinction is here. Invulnerability is entirely about physical harm. Being immune to attack is something else, or can be a number of other things.

The example you provide in The Siberian has this on their profile: Physics Manipulation (The Siberian can ignore the effects of forces on herself, rendering herself effectively invulnerable and allowing her to shear through any object by removing reactionary force). It's quite a specific way of obtaining 'invulnerability,' and covers more than just physical (altering physics in order to not just make herself invulnerable, but ignore effects of force, and being able to shear through any object).

Such is also why I'm confused as to how I could provide examples for specific cases or types of invulnerability having removed such clarifications altogether.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Such is also why I'm confused as to how I could provide examples for specific cases or types of invulnerability having removed such clarifications altogether.

I made the comment before those were removed, since I thought you were keeping them as aspects of the power.

 

[Dust_Collector]

Are we keeping the current thing with invulnerability where the character is invincible to all harm on their dimensional level, like a 9-B character with it being unaffected by even 3-A attacks for example. Because I think a lot of the examples currently on your blog don't fit that if we are keeping that.

Although besides maybe needing different examples, the updated blog looks pretty good.

 

[StretchSebe]

I made the comment before those were removed, since I thought you were keeping them as aspects of the power.

Oh, ok. So, would it be fine to reintroduce them in the limits? For example: Instead of calling it 'conditional,' I would call it Limited, and give it it's own section explanation like Nigh-Invulnerability (as in, a character would have Limited Invulnerability for the same reason of it being limited by time, external means, etc.). And from there, also provide examples of specific characters with either Limited, or Nigh-Invulnerability?

Are we keeping the current thing with invulnerability where the character is invincible to all harm on their dimensional level, like a 9-B character with it being unaffected by even 3-A attacks for example. Because I think a lot of the examples currently on your blog don't fit that if we are keeping that.

Although besides maybe needing different examples, the updated blog looks pretty good.

That is addressed in the first section with regard to AP: How there are plenty of instances of non-physical AP that would completely bypass and still affect a user, and how the ability itself does not correlate to durability (or higher durability).

Thank you though on the updated blog

 

[Dust_Collector]

That is addressed in the first section with regard to AP: How there are plenty of instances of non-physical AP that would completely bypass and still affect a user, and how the ability itself does not correlate to durability (or higher durability).

Yeah I get that but, in regards to people with higher striking strength to the user of invulnerability are we still going with the idea that if they can punch with star destroying force they can't bypass the invulnerability of someone who's 9-B without using non-physical AP or hax? Because I don't think Aku and Ganondorf would work as examples in the nigh-invulnerability section since high enough physical power would still harm them and stuff like special weapons aren't needed just extra helpful given how strong the dudes are (Well at least for Ganon anyway, been way too long since I've watched Samurai Jack).

 

[StretchSebe]

Yeah I get that but, in regards to people with higher striking strength to the user of invulnerability are we still going with the idea that if they can punch with star destroying force they can't bypass the invulnerability of someone who's 9-B without using non-physical AP or hax? Because I don't think Aku and Ganondorf would work as examples in the nigh-invulnerability section since high enough physical power would still harm them and stuff like special weapons aren't needed just extra helpful given how strong the dudes are (Well at least for Ganon anyway, been way too long since I've watched Samurai Jack).

I get what you're saying, but: Ganondorf and Aku do need sacred/blessed weapons to have their durability bypassed.

As for the second point of 'star destroying force,' and as far as being 'unable to have any physical harm inflicted upon them goes,' yes. That does mean they do not take the physical harm. That said, if a 9-B user is being punched with the force to destroy a star, there's one of two things that'll probably kill that character:

1: Physics from such easily doing anything from launching them so deep into the ground or space they'd probably die from other means.
2: Said physics and/or also destroying whatever planet they're likely on.

They may be invulnerable, but they aren't an immovable object or immune to physics.

Maybe I could be more specific, but like with the last point, I feel like I've covered these kinds of things in the limitations section already: With physics, and with sustenance.

 

[Dust_Collector]

As for the second point of 'star destroying force,' and as far as being 'unable to have any physical harm inflicted upon them goes,' yes. That does mean they do not take the physical harm. That said, if a user is being punched with the force to destroy a star on a 9-B human, there's one of two things that'll probably kill that human:

Yeah the first part is what I meant, just the raw AP of the punch itself. I think other factors like you mentioned in those 2 points work well for how invulnerability doesn't protect from other factors aside from physical attacks unless specified.

I get what you're saying, but: Ganondorf and Aku do need sacred/blessed weapons to have their durability bypassed.

Again can't speak on Aku, but for Ganondorf they're only really needed to bypass his immortality / regen and they're also often the only weapons actually strong enough since stuff like the Master Sword or Light Arrows just have way higher AP than most things that could be used against him anyway. I think the best showcase of this is how in the first game he can be harmed by Link using a sword that isn't sacred/blessed because the Triforce of Wisdom simply lowered Ganon's stats, didn't remove his abilities, special traits or anything just made him less durable and then he was hurt despite being blessed with his triforce piece.

 

[StretchSebe]

Yeah the first part is what I meant, just the raw AP of the punch itself. I think other factors like you mentioned in those 2 points work well for how invulnerability doesn't protect from other factors aside from physical attacks unless specified.

Ah, ok. Yeah, they'd be specified more in the Limitations section as is.

Again can't speak on Aku, but for Ganondorf they're only really needed to bypass his immortality / regen and they're also often the only weapons actually strong enough since stuff like the Master Sword or Light Arrows just have way higher AP than most things that could be used against him anyway. I think the best showcase of this is how in the first game he can be harmed by Link using a sword that isn't sacred/blessed because the Triforce of Wisdom simply lowered Ganon's stats, didn't remove his abilities, special traits or anything just made him less durable and then he was hurt despite being blessed with his triforce piece.

Things change? That's the very first game. I know there are probably instances too where there are discrepancies throughout the series, but these can be often explained between the games due to the different timelines, differing sacred weapons (holy arrows), etc.

Broadly speaking, The Triforce of Power does grant Ganondorf 'near invulnerability,' and generally, it is up to Link with the Master Sword in the games to be the one to put an end to whatever he's up to. Aku is a lot more straight forward: He literally is immune to physical harm that isn't from the blessed sword Jack wields.

 

[Dust_Collector]

Things change? That's the very first game. I know there are probably instances too where there are discrepancies throughout the series, but these can be often explained between the games due to the different timelines, differing sacred weapons (holy arrows), etc.

The final fight still gets referenced even in current guidebooks, the thing about Ganon just getting weaker is something from 2018. Ocarina of Time also has a moment where Link loses the Master Sword and is forced to use the biggoron sword or megaton hammer to harm Ganon (The master sword is only needed for the final blow so he can be sealed). Besides that there's nothing that really indicates he can't be harmed even by attacks comparable or superior to his own power, any instance of weapons failing against him and doing no damage are just because they're too weak. The depowered Master Sword doing nothing to him in wind waker also wouldn't have scratched Volvagia either just due to the sheer gap in power.

Granted this should all be saved for it's own thread if needs be since Ganondorf had nigh-invulnerability removed from his profile years ago so him being an example and / or having it should probs be saved as it's own thing.

 

[StretchSebe]

The final fight still gets referenced even in current guidebooks, the thing about Ganon just getting weaker is something from 2018. Ocarina of Time also has a moment where Link loses the Master Sword and is forced to use the biggoron sword or megaton hammer to harm Ganon (The master sword is only needed for the final blow so he can be sealed). Besides that there's nothing that really indicates he can't be harmed even by attacks comparable or superior to his own power, any instance of weapons failing against him and doing no damage are just because they're too weak. The depowered Master Sword doing nothing to him in wind waker also wouldn't have scratched Volvagia either just due to the sheer gap in power.

But it's a pretty consistent plot point in the LoZ games that the Master Sword and Light arrows, or even just one or the other, are the only means of harming or defeating Ganon. For example, the Light arrows are needed in Wind Waker, but when allowed to actually get an attack in, Link with the Master Sword turns him to stone. The Light arrows are needed, but that's largely due to Ganon blocking/deflecting all of Link's attacks. In other games, Light arrows are similarly are effective, often prove useful, or are necessary as well, and against other evil entities besides Ganon. Still, usually the Master Sword works just fine, and so do Light arrows.

Again, true that it is not 100% (considering the other weapons like the megaton hammer and biggoron sword). But it is consistent enough and to a point where it requires more to go into each specific game and plot to explain how each version may or may not be specifically invulnerable to all but sacred weapons, all but some specific weapons that can still damage them through raw strength, instances where the Light arrows were also needed, etc. when broadly, the majority of the games/plots concur on the need for sacred weaponry in order to deal with Ganon once he obtains the Triforce of Power.

Granted this should all be saved for it's own thread if needs be since Ganondorf had nigh-invulnerability removed from his profile years ago so him being an example and / or having it should probs be saved as it's own thing.

Regardless, yeah: I'll change him to another example if it's that contentious. Like I said, it's a super common plot point in the games though. I feel like it goes back to the misconception that he couldn't have such nigh-invulnerability equalized and thus would have a 'no limits fallacy' for his durability or something.

 

[StretchSebe]

On that: What are some examples people think I should add besides someone like Aku for examples of Invulnerability, Nigh-Invulnerability, and Limited Invulnerability? I have some ideas (largely among the examples from when the blog still had types), but I'm sure there could be better examples, or more recognizable examples for any or each of them.

 

[Lou_change]

Okay how does a character quality under the definition provided

 

[StretchSebe]

Okay how does a character quality under the definition provided

I could clarify that further in the blog. But a bit of a 'quick' run down here would be being completely, utterly unable to be harmed by physical attacks:

Basically: The priority for 'proof' for this ability would be statements > feats > scaling.

Stated invuln or nigh-invuln is an immediate qualifier, obv. (Aku being stated

As for feats.... Characters being so durable/strong that even top tier characters in their verse largely can't physically hurt them doesn't mean they have this ability. Often they can eventually be able to be hurt. That said, feats could still indicate either. It would just require absolutely no physical harm being dealt to a character at any point in spite of all the fighting they would be doing and engaging in, which can be difficult to find. For example of someone who probably would qualify through feats; I'm not sure if HIM is ever directly stated to be invulnerable anywhere, but iirc, they never take any physical damage in any of their fights with the Power Puff Girls (or otherwise) throughout the series. Notably, even when he allowed them to tire themselves out in beating him up in the episode Speed Demon. He has Invulnerability on his page, and nearly all wiki sources (and other battle boards) also concur he does because of this seeming invulnerability being the case across the series.

Basically can't do it through scaling. Again, usually characters far beyond others aren't actually invuln or nigh-invuln: They simply out scale, and could likely be physically harmed if another character was or got to their level, or if something that could typically cause physical harm (also on their level) were able to.

On that: What are some examples people think I should add besides someone like Aku for examples of Invulnerability, Nigh-Invulnerability, and Limited Invulnerability? I have some ideas (largely among the examples from when the blog still had types), but I'm sure there could be better examples, or more recognizable examples for any or each of them.

Seriously though: The page could use some good examples, and variety in verses too! I'd be open to suggestions and all as I fix it further

 

[Lou_change]

I know it's not clear on the page but that is not how we are supposed treat invulnerability officially we need a mechanism that explains why beyond they said so and technically aren't proven wrong.

 

[StretchSebe]

I know it's not clear on the page but that is not how we are supposed treat invulnerability officially we need a mechanism that explains why beyond they said so and technically aren't proven wrong.

If you're referring to feats, I provided HIM. I'm sure there are many other instances of characters never said to be invulnerable outright, but exhibit such an ability.

Besides wanting examples for the page itself, such is why I've asked in the thread for character examples. I'm no sage: There are examples of performed invulnerability, but unstated invulnerability across fiction, and I'd like to see such characters

 

[Lou_change]

Statements are also bad