JoJo and Verse Equalization

[Ciruno_Fortes]

They literally said the bullet bounced off though?

https://xy-06-j.*********.net/e3/68/5c5c1296f2404c036d32863e/15_293458_780_1200.jpeg

P5 Section 6. In fact it's how they discovered their gambit failed.

The existence of plot holes sucks but some things aren't just plot holes in this case.

 

[Paul_Frank]

If a bullet can't piece the ice and a pole can that's quite clearly a plothole

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

Okay.

How about the screw above?

 

[DragonEmperor23]

It's not just a normal pole, he got Muda'd into it.

 

[Paul_Frank]

The screw got through thanks to gold experience

 

[TriforcePower1]

The "Only stands can harm stands" is still valid as physical Stands can still harm the non-corporeal ones. While the non-corporeal ones cannot be hurt by anything different than a stand.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

@Dragon

That seems to get fuzzy. Since technically you're being hit on one side by something that can harm you, and then being attacked by something from behind that's not capable of harming you.

Even with that in mind, it's not as if Stand energy covers the projectiles used by Stands or something. And also one of the issues with that is how Ghiacco basically tripped and landed on the lamp. Giorno's gudaguda aside

@Paul

The above argument.

@Triforce

That seems fair.

Though we're gonna have to consider the fact that damage isn't shared with the Stand Users. Are the other Stands categorized yet?

 

[DragonEmperor23]

I don't think that when your stand is damaged it gives the user the exact same amount of damage. Hierophant Green busted open Star Platinum's chest with an emerald splash but Jotaro wasn't lethally injured.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

Weird, I was watching a vid about that

I don't think it applies to everyone since some Stands get harmed and the User doesn't get too damaged. There's also the fact that you have Stands which aren't exactly humanoid which makes it an issue.

Or Araki forgot.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

For the stands that aren't humanoid, it tries to translate across what's most similar I think.

 

[HierophantDeluxe]

All of your questions can really be answered with inconsistencies and what's favorable to the plot.

No, stands cannot be affected by normal objects in most cases. Magician Red's flames, sure they seem to be affected by toilet water. But The Empress was never said to be incorporeal and hasn't demonstrated it like other stands, it seems like it's just a growth on Joseph's arm. Star Platinum was never at risk from The World's knives - it was Jotaro who was. DIO threw them at Jotaro, Star Platinum came to intercept them.

Yeah damage doesn't seem to always translate 1-1 like when Hierophant Green shot Star Platinum in the chest and Jotaro doesn't outright die. It's really only this way because if Jotaro did die, the story would have been over. Araki had to keep him around.

Non-humanoid stands also try to translate the damage in a similar area to the user.

Can an admin close this thread now? It already concluded a few days ago.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

I'm not pushing for it and a single inconsistency is fine.

But when you have multiple stacks of them that it becomes an issue and I want us to address them whether to assert that they're just inconsistencies or not so that we don't have to deal with them in the future. Also I never focused on the Star Platinum knives.

Also in general, a lot of Stands betray the current existing Stand Rules even to this very day. Dream Stands, Anubis, any Stand that doesn't reflect damage etc etc. I agree with Dragon that the damage is translated in some way but that's not always the case.

 

[Elizhaa]

I agree with Ciruno Fortes's points.

 

[TacticalNuke002]

The Stands types that don't transfer damage include:

1. Tool types. Eg. Emperor, Beach Boy etc.

2. Bound Stands. Eg. Strength, Wheel of Fortune etc.

3. Paramecia types. Eg. Hermit Purple, Yellow Temperance etc.

4. Independent types. Eg. Highway Star, Black Sabbath etc.

5. Unhittable types. Eg. Sethan, Chocolate Disco etc.

6. Utility types. Eg. Bastet, Tubular Bells etc.

 

[HierophantDeluxe]

It's not a single inconsistency, the entire series is filled with them. This is acknowledged by Araki who literally says they follow "some" rules, not all of the rules. This varies from stand to stand.

What are you proposing though Ciruno?

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Idk if this was in the manga but Reimi gasped when Rohan summoned Heaven's Door so she might have seen it.

 

[Elizhaa]

With so many Inconsistencies for the rules and even Araki acknowledging, I would count this statement as invalid. Honestly, I believe if these was any other series with the evidences that we have, we would have reject this statement a while ago.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

@Hierophant

That's the issue. There's some point where too many inconsistencies can cause the source, in this case WoG and some reinforced rules to fall apart. If we can somehow categorize or maybe make a list of notes/blog post about all the inconsistences, and then either refute or justify why they exist, we can keep the existing rules. It's a problem if we don't and just say "Oh it's just in the beginning" or "it's just an exception". It would be fine to say that reason if it was indeed just the beginning or there's only very few, but if we get too many it's bad.

List them all out basically and see if WoG can still stand. No need to include what I talked about that we debunked though. But things like Reimi seeing the Stand of Rohan one might be something to keep tabs on.

@Cal

Thank you for telling me

Tracked it. Visibly shocked.

https://s3.mkklcdnv3.com/**********...s_adventure_part_2_official_color_scans/4.jpg

Chapter 331, Rohan Kishibe's Adventure

@Elizhea

Yeah. I suppose we can ask "If this wasn't Jojo, we would be lenient enough with it to let it happen?" I know it's a long-running series but we gotta keep consistency at least. Araki forgot is a good meme but we can't just dismiss that

 

[Paul_Frank]

To be fair anyone would be shocked if someone walked up to you and started drawing a picture in the air like a madman and yelling heaven's door ovo

 

[PolarKid]

Araki forgot is a good meme

No just no

 

[HierophantDeluxe]

With so many Inconsistencies for the rules and even Araki acknowledging, I would count this statement as invalid. Honestly, I believe if these was any other series with the evidences that we have, we would have reject this statement a while ago.

Inconsistencies is un-intended foresights that don't add up.

Exceptions are intended foresights that don't add up.

I'd say stands not following stand rules are exceptions more often then they are inconsistencies. Araki clearly makes stands that break the rules. He's not forgetting, he literally outlines it and uses the phrase "some rules" and "in general" when describing what restrictions and powers they have.

Someone close this thread please. We're repeating discussion and there's no (new) conclusion here AFAIK.

 

[Elizhaa]

HierophantDeluxe, the topic is not repeated. The previous topic was on the assumptions that the rule for stands is completely valid. Now, we find that they are a lot of exceptions or Inconsistencies within these rules and they can't just be ignored.

I rather the stands's Non-Corporeal abilities be judged by a case by case basis then a blanket invalid statements.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

Except there are new discussions??? We're addressing other existing inconsistencies.

A few inconsistencies and exceptions are fine. It's when you get dozens of them that contradict certain important factors that it becomes an issue.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Excuse me, but what dozen inconsistencies? I've only seen like 3 or 4 brought up, and out of them only like 1 would be treated as an actual inconsistency.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

I didn't outright say Jojo verse has them though. That's why I'm discussing we check already to have to avoid dealing with this problem... The key is to get rid of said inconsistency.

But alright. We can just make a new CRT for that anyway.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Except there are new discussions??? We're addressing other existing inconsistencies.

A few inconsistencies and exceptions are fine. It's when you get dozens of them that contradict certain important factors that it becomes an issue.

I'm just curious on what you are referring to here.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

It's a saying. I wasn't saying Jojo has exactly that number. I was saying if we have way too much of those, then it becomes questionable. Keyword If. But let's save it for a blog post in that case

 

[Ogbunabali]

I see. Well unless there are actual cases where the vailidy on how stands function is questioned then this should be discussed. But as it stands now I don't see what the issue is.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

Thing is the existence of multiple different type of stands already contradicts the Stand Rules by default. So there's more than a dozen there I'd say.

And just the idea that a Stand throwing or attacking with something (like a pole or screw) is enough to make it somehow able to harmful to others.

But anyway let's save that for some other time

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

>consistency in JoJo

 

[Ogbunabali]

Well not really. Having different types of stands is pretty inline to what stands are since Stardust Crusaders. There have been multiple different type of stands, and Jotaro and Dio having the same type of stand is a whole plot point.

 

[Ciruno_Fortes]

Exactly. But if you put in the idea that

>Only Stands can hurt other Stands

Physical Stands get hurt by non-Stands.

>Damage taken by Stands is reversed to the User

Not always the case like we've seen in some examples above

>Only Stands can see other Stands

Ghost alley. Then there's possibly cute ghost Reimi, maybe. We would need more for this to matter.


So basically, that rule thing might as well be obsolete now with newer Parts. Some stuff are still true, but yeah.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Didn't Ciocolatta also hurt Sex Pistols with a scalpel?

 

[Ogbunabali]

Well those have already been addressed I don't know why we are repeating each other ad infinitum.

Physical stands getting hurt by non stands is pretty self explanatory. Physical stand is a stand that is, well physical, it would be weird if it wouldn't get hurt by non stands.

Pretty sure the damage has always been reflected. But even if not it would be an outlier and not the rule.

Ghost ally is such an ambiguous entity that we have no idea what it is or what it does, so I don't know how that's an argument for anything.

 

[HierophantDeluxe]

HierophantDeluxe, the topic is not repeated. The previous topic was on the assumptions that the rule for stands is completely valid. Now, we find that they are a lot of exceptions or Inconsistencies within these rules and they can't just be ignored.
I rather the stands's Non-Corporeal abilities be judged by a case by case basis then a blanket invalid statements.

We already do this. Nobody gave Anubis non-corporeality because he doesn't demonstrate it. You're proposing to go about something how we already go about it. That's why most of the discussion here seems irrelevant to me.

By default we just apply the rules. If the stand breaks these rules or is not consistent with them, we strip the specific rule/ability from their profile. This way of going about it has not brought any contradictions or problems so far.

TL;DR - They all get a base set of abilities for being a stand. We remove them if they are inconsitent with the use of these abilities.