Invulnerability: Let's talk about it.

[Magicomethkuon]

To me, a character should be granted invulnerability if there is a mechanic behind this immunity, a means that is clearly distinct from durability. For example if a character is invulnerable to physical attacks because there is a magical blessing but they are susceptible to the exact same damage without it. To me, the key would be that the story goes the extent of acknowledging and describing that power as its own real deal.

From there, any limits or lack of them could be determined from the corresponding showings. But if a character is taking no damage without any explanation, it's simply a case of durability or resistance.

 

[StretchSebe]

It's just how it is.

It's just how it is?

Shouldn't it be fixed so it actually follows the standards, and isn't an outlier?

Isn't that how things that don't follow standards broadly are treated? Revised to actually follow standards?

Invulnerability means immunity to damage per the definition, which is what the power grants. Just being durable isn't enough, you have to prove that the character is immune to harm.

Also, please refer to the definition used in the blog, and that I've consistently used here. I'm not entertaining semantics.

The definition serves the revision; to make it practical to discuss the power/ability, and apply to discussions about, and on characters with the power/ability.

It would counter any form of AP that works on the physical scale. It would work on Goku but not necessarily Doctor Manhattan.

Right... but Goku could just use a ki blast. May not be as flashy or Hax as what Doctor Manhattan could do, but any non-physical harm would still work.

I know through sheer physicality attacks can be generated mimicking that of powers/abilities (I.E. Togoro having air manipulation because he can flick his thumb so fast and with such strength he can make rapid-fire air bullets), but physical harm is far more specific in fiction than you'd initially think, and there's lots of non-physical ways characters could deal with the user's invulnerability if they don't have any other notable resistances/immunities to said means. Again, refer to the blog for examples.

Sure, but that aspect of the power was never in dispute.

It's not that it was in dispute: It was just a theoretical response, and example in response to the '3-A couldn't defeat 9-B with invuln.'

Once again; there is an entire lifting strength section explaining how physics and grappling could be exploited against a character with invulnerability.

If the nemean lion is too tired, take Gideon Jura from Magic: The Gathering. He uses his magic to grant himself invulnerability, but the demon Ob Nixilis in a relatively recent story nearly drowns him in a shallow puddle by overpowering/out grappling him in combat.

 

[StretchSebe]

To me, a character should be granted invulnerability if there is a mechanic behind this immunity, a means that is clearly distinct from durability. For example if a character is invulnerable to physical attacks because there is a magical blessing but they are susceptible to the exact same damage without it. To me, the key would be that the story goes the extent of acknowledging and describing that power as its own real deal.

From there, any limits or lack of them could be determined from the corresponding showings. But if a character is taking no damage without any explanation, it's simply a case of durability or resistance.

And yeah: A large part of invulnerability and (at least in my opinion) why it's been treated the way it has is because the context is highly dependent on each fiction it is in.

That said, it's not so dependent that we can't draw limitations, and figure out legitimate ways in which characters can gain, or just have invulnerability

 

[Qawsedf234]

Shouldn't it be fixed so it actually follows the standards

It does follow standards, since like other powers it's following the definition of the word. It's just thst most works thst use invulnerability don't qualify for our invulnerability, since they're typically just "durable" rather than "immune to being damaged".

Also, please refer to the definition used in the blog, and that I've consistently used here. I'm not entertaining semantics.

The blog uses the same definition

Invulnerability (also known as Invincibility) is an ability in which the user is unable to have any physical harm inflicted upon them.

But if the above isn't good enough it can be adjusted to the current one

Invulnerability is the power to be immune to conventional harm.

This is distinct from simply particularly high durability, which may make a character seem invulnerable to weaker opponents. Only characters whose invulnerability is clearly more than simply being exceptionally durable for the verse's setting qualify.

Characters with such powers may simply be unaffected by normal attacks, necessitating the use of things like Durability Negation to get through. Others have more conditional invulnerability, such as one that just prevents harm from conventional weaponry, but can be easily circumvented by supernatural abilities. It can be considered the defensive equivalent of Durability Negation, negating simple Attack Potency, though one should be careful not to apply No Limits Fallacy.

We've always treated it as "cannot be damaged" rather than "is tough"

Right... but Goku could just use a ki blast.

Ki blasts are physical based. Which would be blocked by someone who is invulnerable. But Hakai would be something they wouldn't be resistant to.

 

[StretchSebe]

It does follow standards, since like other powers it's following the definition of the word. It's just thst most works thst use invulnerability don't qualify for our invulnerability, since they're typically just "durable" rather than "immune to being damaged".

It's just how it is.

When asked if we make an exception for how we treat invulnerability, you said this. The current standard for invulnerability, by your own admission, is different from the standards of all other powers/abilities. I just want to bring it back in line. Make it make sense.

The blog uses the same definition

Invulnerability means immunity to damage per the definition, which is what the power grants. Just being durable isn't enough, you have to prove that the character is immune to harm.

Invulnerability (also known as Invincibility) is an ability in which the user is unable to have any physical harm inflicted upon them.

You were earlier arguing for a different definition, and went on to use a vague definition about 'damage' instead of the one that specifies physical harm in the blog.

Not trying to be pedantic: I simply ask we not argue semantics. For the sake of simply keeping discussion clear and good faith.

Ki blasts are physical based. Which would be blocked by someone who is invulnerable. But Hakai would be something they wouldn't be resistant to.

... Ki is energy based. Non-physical.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The current standard for invulnerability, by your own admission, is different from the standards of all other powers/abilities.

The main difference between invulnerability is that works will use it as a power to reference something being really durable (for example Superman), when we use it as attack negation hax. Which is why I said the standards were different, since you have to prove a showing rather than give an example of the power in effect.

It's harder to prove invulnerability than it is fire manipulation or flight, since being durable doesn't automatically grant the ability.

You were earlier arguing for a different definition

I was arguing for the current definition. I disagree with the OP's blog since that goes against what the power is supposed to be.

Non-physical

Ki inflicts damage through physical force and heat, which would (or should) trigger invulnerability.

 

[StretchSebe]

The main difference between invulnerability is that works will use it as a power to reference something being really durable (for example Superman), when we use it as attack negation hax. Which is why I said the standards were different, since you have to prove a showing rather than give an example of the power in effect.

It's harder to prove invulnerability than it is fire manipulation or flight, since being durable doesn't automatically grant the ability.

Of course; which is why it's incredibly helpful when a character is stated to actually have it as a specific ability/power.

Yet again, the blog makes the distinction between this ability, and durability, and how the two do not correlate.

I was arguing for the current definition. I disagree with the OP's blog since that goes against what the power is supposed to be.

'What the power is supposed to be' is by your admission an 'idealized' version of the power, and a power that is treated as an exception to the standards for all the other powers/abilities because of that.

The revision is aiming to make the page describe and provide a practical version of the power that actually follows standards; with clear and proper explanation, examples of limitations this power would have through conditions or simply due to it being granted/nigh-invulnerability and coming with caveats, and even how characters of equal tiering could counter a character with invulnerability through things like their lifting strength, trapping them, and/or depriving them of sustenance.

Ki inflicts damage through physical force and heat, which would (or should) trigger invulnerability.

No.

I can post the text here if you didn't feel like reading the link the first time, or a second time:

"Ki (気 "Ki", lit. "Air, Breath"), also known as chi/qi, Youki (妖気 Yōki, lit. "Bewitching energy")[1] or simply energy (エネルギー enerugī), is the life force energy used by Dragon Ball characters.

Ki is also known as "latent energy" or "fighting power," which directly translates as "life force." This force is a tangible energy inside every living being, with its major focus being in the center of the body. By drawing it out, an individual is able to manipulate it and use it outside the body. Ki can be used for many different techniques. Because there are physical limits to the strength of the body itself, it is necessary to increase one's ki to overcome this barrier and become stronger. Usually, the more concentrated the masses are, the more time the user requires to draw it out by powering up. When fighters gather ki, they are able to gain enhanced strength, speed, endurance, and can increase the power of their attacks to inflict greater damage to opponents. Normally, the more the ki is increased, the harder it is to control, so ki control is also important. Energy can be lost when the user sustains injuries, as exclaimed by Gohan when he loses over half of his maximum energy supply when hit by Cell's Time to Die. Maintaining proper balance between the body and spirit is important in utilizing energy, and the more properly balanced they are, the more energy you can project."

 

[Dust_Collector]

Of course; which is why it's incredibly helpful when a character is stated to actually have it as a specific ability/power.

It's not really that helpful when a character is stated to actually have it, have someone stated to be invulnerable when the only attacks their ever going up against are building level and it's gonna be hard to believe that "invulnerability" is gonna save them from someone who hits hard with country destroying force. More often then not characters stated to have invulnerability as a power is just a fancy way of saying they're really tough.

I can post the text here if you didn't feel like reading the link the first time, or a second time:

"Ki (気 "Ki", lit. "Air, Breath"), also known as chi/qi, Youki (妖気 Yōki, lit. "Bewitching energy")[1] or simply energy (エネルギー enerugī), is the life force energy used by Dragon Ball characters.

Ki is also known as "latent energy" or "fighting power," which directly translates as "life force." This force is a tangible energy inside every living being, with its major focus being in the center of the body. By drawing it out, an individual is able to manipulate it and use it outside the body. Ki can be used for many different techniques. Because there are physical limits to the strength of the body itself, it is necessary to increase one's ki to overcome this barrier and become stronger. Usually, the more concentrated the masses are, the more time the user requires to draw it out by powering up. When fighters gather ki, they are able to gain enhanced strength, speed, endurance, and can increase the power of their attacks to inflict greater damage to opponents. Normally, the more the ki is increased, the harder it is to control, so ki control is also important. Energy can be lost when the user sustains injuries, as exclaimed by Gohan when he loses over half of his maximum energy supply when hit by Cell's Time to Die. Maintaining proper balance between the body and spirit is important in utilizing energy, and the more properly balanced they are, the more energy you can project."

This doesn't really contradict the idea that 9 times outta 10 Ki attacks in Dragon Ball deals damage via physical means. Hell this paragraph you just posted even mentions Ki often being used for greater strength and dealing greater damage, a punch from Goku and a Ki enhanced punch from Goku is no different aside from the latter doing more damage it's not somehow altering the very nature of his punches so invulnerability doesn't work against it.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Of course; which is why it's incredibly helpful when a character is stated to actually have it as a specific ability/power.

Yet again, the blog makes the distinction between this ability, and durability, and how the two do not correlate.

Because they don't. Invulnerability is hax, durability is just how tough you are.

What the power is supposed to be' is by your admission an 'idealized' version of the power, and a power that is treated as an exception to the standards for all the other powers/abilities because of that.

It's an idealized version because most works don't use the actual definition of the word. Like how "lightning fast" or "laser" are both concepts fiction overuses without either actually being as fast as lightning or as fast as light.

Which is why I said idealized version. Because someone like Metroman being called invulnerable isn't enough, you have to demonstrate that he has the distinct ability to be immune to damage rather than just being durable.

with clear and proper explanation, examples of limitations this power would have through conditions or simply due to it being granted/nigh-invulnerability and coming with caveats, and even how characters of equal tiering could counter a character with invulnerability through things like their lifting strength, trapping them, and/or depriving them of sustenance.

It's trying and failing at that since everyone has disagreed with the original draft and the new draft still has issues.

The OP rewrote to much, since actually changing the qualifications of the power would be a staff thread as it affects a common power justification rather than a CRT that effects how the power is worded.

This force is a tangible energy

Ki also carries physical force (people are literally moved back from stopping Ki) and it works by blowing stuff up. It would be something invulnerability would block.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

This doesn't really contradict the idea that 9 times outta 10 Ki attacks in Dragon Ball deals damage via physical means. Hell this paragraph you just posted even mentions Ki often being used for greater strength and dealing greater damage, a punch from Goku and a Ki enhanced punch from Goku is no different aside from the latter doing more damage it's not somehow altering the very nature of his punches so invulnerability doesn't work against it.

Leaving the specific to Dragon Ball example aside, to be honest there are a lot of franchises that treat energy attacks as their own property though. But if the invulnerability would cover that should be up to whether or not its nullification is based on resulting damage being to the physical body, or if there is a certain range of damage sources that it can nullify.

All in all I think there are different kinds of invulnerability mechanisms, some more limited than others, that are equally valid in their own ways.

 

[StretchSebe]

It's an idealized version because most works don't use the actual definition of the word.

Untrue.

Like how "lightning fast" or "laser" are both concepts fiction overuses without either actually being as fast as lightning or as fast as light.

Which is why I said idealized version. Because someone like Metroman being called invulnerable isn't enough, you have to demonstrate that he has the distinct ability to be immune to damage rather than just being durable.

I really don't know how we keep conflating it being said to be a legitimate part of a characters powers/abilities with hyperbole. And it is still strange to me to insist on the breaking of standards to maintain this instead of just accepting the potential of a reliable, in-context confirmation of it as a power or ability for a character (let alone external sources like guidebooks or databooks). Of course demonstrating it will always be better, and more 'ideal.' But trying to fit this one specific power/ability into an ideal - unlike all the other powers/abilities on the site - will fail more across fictions and characters than even a subpar attempt at trying to making it tangible/digestible.

It's trying and failing at that since everyone has disagreed with the original draft and the new draft still has issues.

Everyone disagreed with the types.

Even before edits, some agreed with the revision.

You have the ability to click 1 at the top and bottom of the page.

Please do that before saying something that short-sighted, spiteful, and easily falsifiable in the future.

Besides, it's not like you've been providing much constructive criticism when you're arguing things like...

Ki also carries physical force (people are literally moved back from stopping Ki) and it works by blowing stuff up. It would be something invulnerability would block.

... this is an incredibly weird false equivocation of 'sometimes it can be physical in application, so it's all physical.'

Ki is energy.

It's ok if you don't know much about Dragon Ball, but you shouldn't start moving goal posts on something you were already wrong about.

You don't have to die on the weird hill of classifying a literal energy, and energy system as 'physical' because some things can be done with it physically.

Also:

The OP rewrote to much, since actually changing the qualifications of the power would be a staff thread as it affects a common power justification rather than a CRT that effects how the power is worded.

This is a rule? That in revision, rewriting too much disqualifies it entirely? Isn't the entire point of revision to... revise?

Was I supposed to not be open to criticism and changing things to make it better for potential content revision?

 

[StretchSebe]

Leaving the specific to Dragon Ball example aside, to be honest there are a lot of franchises that treat energy attacks as their own property though. But if the invulnerability would cover that should be up to whether or not its nullification is based on resulting damage being to the physical body, or if there is a certain range of damage sources that it can nullify.

All in all I think there are different kinds of invulnerability mechanisms, some more limited than others, that are equally valid in their own ways.

This is true: I could add those things, like how often it is granted through magic, a blessing, actual hax abilities, etc.

Even how it might work for specific characters.

Ik I keep using Aku (still open and awaiting other examples), but his entire nigh-durability is due to his evil. Coming from off of Earth, his 'primordial' form creates a literal 'pit of malice,' and once given form, the only thing that can harm Aku is the blessed sword Jack uses.

A lot of characters are similar in needing blessed/sacred weapons, or just such blessings in order to harm them due to their evil nature, or some similar reasoning about their evil granting them a supernatural invulnerability to nearly everything but holy things... Like vampires, generally. Energy things like sunlight withstanding lol

 

[Qawsedf234]

Untrue.

I posted the real definition of the word. Invulnerable means incapable of being harmed. Which is why I said we use the idealized version of the word.

I really don't know how we keep conflating it being said to be a legitimate part of a characters powers/abilities with hyperbole. And it is still strange to me to insist on the breaking of standards to maintain this instead of just accepting the potential of a reliable, in-context confirmation of it as a power or ability for a character (let alone external sources like guidebooks or databooks). Of course demonstrating it will always be better, and more 'ideal.' But trying to fit this one specific power/ability into an ideal - unlike all the other powers/abilities on the site - will fail more across fictions and characters than even a subpar attempt at trying to making it tangible/digestible.

Its not unreasonable, its based on hyperboles and evidence. A character being beyond space isn't given a 1-A rating, omnipotence doesn't give an automatic rating and being called invulnerable doesn't give you durability hax without more to it. Being durable is already accounted for in our profiles. Being immune to damage is a different power.

Ki is energy.

It's ok if you don't know much about Dragon Ball, but you shouldn't start moving goal posts on something you were already wrong about.

Its okay if you don't remember much about Dragon Ball. So let me remind you:

• Ki imparts physical force
• Ki can move people backwards meaning it carries kinetic energy
• You can resist attacks by just being tougher

Ki does not ignore durability, its a energy system that relies on physically damaging the thing it hits. In the link you gave it even showed that you can enhance your physical attacks with Ki and we have examples of that happening like Gohan inflicting more damage in a few punches than Goku did with a ki barrage. Hakai would negate Invulnerability, but not a Kamehameha (assuming they're the same tier).

This is a rule?

Yeah, our Discussion Rules note that site wide changes are a Staff Thread thing

For changes that have a significant impact on the entire wiki, additional safeguards are in place. Only the most trusted and experienced staff members will evaluate the proposed courses of action. Please note that this version incorporates a universal veto, which allows any single staff member (bureaucrat) with veto power to block a proposed decision, even if it has the support of the majority.

Cleaning up a page would be a CRT, changing the qualifications or abilities of a power is a staff thread.

If your goal is to just clean the page up a CRT is fine. If your goal is to completely change the justifications of the power or how that power works this would need to be raised up.

 

[StretchSebe]

I posted the real definition of the word. Invulnerable means incapable of being harmed. Which is why I said we use the idealized version of the word.

Its not unreasonable, its based on hyperboles and evidence. A character being beyond space isn't given a 1-A rating, omnipotence doesn't give an automatic rating and being called invulnerable doesn't give you durability hax without more to it. Being durable is already accounted for in our profiles. Being immune to damage is a different power.

Its okay if you don't remember much about Dragon Ball. So let me remind you:

• Ki imparts physical force
• Ki can move people backwards meaning it carries kinetic energy
• You can resist attacks by just being tougher

Ki does not ignore durability, its a energy system that relies on physically damaging the thing it hits. In the link you gave it even showed that you can enhance your physical attacks with Ki and we have examples of that happening like Gohan inflicting more damage in a few punches than Goku did with a ki barrage. Hakai would negate Invulnerability, but not a Kamehameha (assuming they're the same tier).

Yeah, our Discussion Rules note that site wide changes are a Staff Thread thing

Cleaning up a page would be a CRT, changing the qualifications or abilities of a power is a staff thread.

If your goal is to just clean the page up a CRT is fine. If your goal is to completely change the justifications of the power or how that power works this would need to be raised up.

... after running into this with another moderator in the recent past (if I had a nickel for every time joke), I've come to realize the best course of action when it becomes apparent that someone is just concern trolling, and not sincerely engaging in actual discussion or debate is to simply disengage.

I've been nothing but charitable, but by now you're abusing it.

It's clear you don't care about this possible content revision, and clear that you had already come with the conclusion 'no.'

You're not even seriously arguing if you're literally at a point where you're making things up about both the blog and this thread that can be falsified with just one click each. Also when trying to derail with this incredibly bizarre 'ki-itself-is-physical' argument. Layman know about Dragon Ball that ki itself is energy.

But now I know. I've provided the links you didn't click, the text you selectively read, and the explanations you have all these granular, irreconcilable 'concerns' about.

You can just give the 'universal veto' and close the thread if you want. If not, I'm just taking it to the general request thread anyways cause this won't go anywhere.

Sorry for the trouble, and for concerning you Qawsedf234.

 

[Qawsedf234]

that someone is just concern trolling,

What? I'm not concern trolling.

It's clear you don't care about this possible content revision, and clear that you had already come with the conclusion 'no.'

Let me state my points then:

• I agree the page needs to be reworked because it is bare bones (I think our page on water manipulation is larger than Invulnerability for example when that shouldn't be true)
• I agree with you that we should give examples of what Invulnerability actual is so people get the right idea of it
• I agree that we should explain what nigh-invulnerability is and give some examples of it

What I disagree on your proposal is you're limiting it just to striking strength and just to material damage (i.e. someone punching something). Invulnerability as currently accepted is just immunity to non-hax damage for your tier, as explained here:

It can be considered the defensive equivalent of Durability Negation, negating simple Attack Potency, though one should be careful not to apply No Limits Fallacy.

The power is negating damage down to 0. For your blog it would just be making the following changes:

Invulnerability (also known as Invincibility) is an ability in which the user is unable to have any physical harm inflicted upon them. -> Invulnerability (also known as Invincibility) is an ability in which the user is unable to have any harm inflicted upon them.

This ability means a character with higher Striking Strength than a user's durability will be unable to physically harm a user. This ability does not grant the user a higher durability stat. Nor does it correlate to surviving AP: It merely means that while a user is invulnerable, they are able to withstand any and all physical attacks without any harm such attacks may cause the user otherwise. There are many instances of AP across fiction that aren't physical that could still affect and/or harm the user, most prominently in the form of Energy or Aura attacks. -> This ability means a character with higher Attack Potency than a user's durability will be unable to physically harm a user. This ability does not grant the user a higher durability stat, nor does it correlate to surviving all forms of attack: It merely means that while a user is invulnerable, they are able to withstand any and all physical attacks without any harm such attacks may cause the user otherwise.

The only other thing I could think to add would be something like:

Invulnerability is not assumed to work on a higher dimensional level. A 3-D being with invulnerability would not be treated as immune to attacks from a Low 2-C being unless they show evidence in their series.

Layman know about Dragon Ball that ki itself is energy.

I wasn't arguing they weren't energy, I said they inflict damage through physical force which would fall under Invulnerability.

An energy attack that like, attacks your soul or erases you wouldn't trigger invulnerability. Same thing if your invulnerability was limited to physical attacks but lightning still harms you.

You can just give the 'universal veto' and shut the thread if you want.

Well I wouldn't do that, since in my opinion no one should have that Veto in the first place and closing a thread people are in support of seems like a rash action.

But I also can't do it anyways, since I'm not a Bureaucrat.

Sorry for the trouble, and for concerning you Qawsedf234.

I disagree with some of your blog choices, but I don't disagree with the thread or your intention. Invulnerability is in need of a touch up.