Mimihagi, Kototsu, and Pernida Abstract Existence?

[Kaltias]

Just commenting on the general AE stuff bc idk Bleach.

Type 3 AE is for "I embody an abstraction so I can manipulate it" sort of abstracts.

So it isn't "I can manipulate the concept of space", it's "I can manipulate the concept of space because I embody it" (Palkia for example, although it might not be the best example because I lost track of how we treat conceptual/abstract stuff in Pokemon).

Is it redundant? I mean, yeah, I pointed out that myself when rewriting the page, it's simply concept (Or whatever abstraction) manipulation due to a specific reason, but people wanted to add type 2 and 3 regardless.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the information.

 

[Wokistan]

Pretty sure IG thanos is just able to manipulate the abstractions themselves.

 

[AppleLord]

Pretty sure IG thanos is just able to manipulate the abstractions themselves.

My point is that Thanos isn't one of them. He isn't an embodiment of something.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, Thanos should not have abstract existence type 3.

 

[AppleLord]

Yes, Thanos should not have abstract existence type 3.

No? What is shown in the marvel comics is that the embodiments in marvel are type 3 because Thanos with IG (Thanos is not an astral embodiment) was able to defeat the astral embodiments.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the IG can manipulate metaphysical concepts.

 

[Wokistan]

You don't need to be an abstract to affect an abstract. For example Oryx, the Taken King and his whole axiom destruction deal. He could affect someone who exists as nothing but an axiom, a type 1, just fine. This is due to being able to affect the abstraction itself. Infinity gauntlet can do the same.

At this point, I feel like a thread just on AE type 3 should be made.

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

What should I do about the thread here? Some people agree, some are split, and some disagree.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, this has been rejected for Bleach characters, but as Wokistan said, we likely need a staff thread for deciding how to better clarify type 3 in general.

 

[Wokistan]

I can see about typing one layer, when school is done. I'd highlight that right?

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

Oh? I thought Wokistan was fine with it but okay then.

 

[Antvasima]

You can probably place a link in the highlights thread, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

Should we close this discussion?

 

[AppleLord]

You don't need to be an abstract to affect an abstract. For example Oryx, the Taken King and his whole axiom destruction deal. He could affect someone who exists as nothing but an axiom, a type 1, just fine. This is due to being able to affect the abstraction itself. Infinity gauntlet can do the same.
At this point, I feel like a thread just on AE type 3 should be made.

IG Thanos and Oryx are still under the current type 3 rule since neither of them are an ebodiment of something.

 

[Wokistan]

Oryx is type 2 for different reasons but that's besides the point. Thanos isn't even an abstract being with the infinity gauntlet, he can just manipulate concepts. What you said was him being wble to manipulate th concepts makes those concepts type 3.

 

[AppleLord]

Oryx is type 2 for different reasons but that's besides the point. Thanos isn't even an abstract being with the infinity gauntlet, he can just manipulate concepts. What you said was him being wble to manipulate th concepts makes those concepts type 3.

The current rules of type 3 says:

Type 3: Embodies an abstraction, but the destruction of the former isn't needed in order to destroy or affect them. These characters do not rely on the abstraction to survive, but thanks to their affinity with it, they are able to manipulate it.

 

[Antvasima]

Well the explanation text contradicts itself. It says that they embody a concept at the start, but then it says that they do not rely on it to survive.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Im gonna be honest here. I really think that the default assumption should be that a character relies on a concept if they are made to embody one.

Because looking at it from my perspective, if a character embodies a concept, that concept is a part of their existence. Someone embodies the concept of death, then death is a part of them. Someone embodies the concept of life and life is a part of them. The concept is a part of their very being. So ask yourself this: why would someone not rely on something thats a part of them? Thats like saying we humans dont rely on a heart or brain to live when its a part of who we are and how we are able to continue living.

So I think that if a character is stated to embody a concept, making that concept a part of themselves, then there's no reason to assume they don't rely on it when its a part of their existence. Unless something says otherwise. Thats the thing I wanted to get out before this thread closed.

 

[Wokistan]

You can be said to "embody" something in a non literal sense being why. Khârn the Betrayers said to be the embodiment of Khorne's rage, he's not some sort of conceptual being. The player character in Katana ZERO can become "an embodiment of death", which doesn't stop them from dying due to drug withdrawl. Characters should have to actually display abstract characteristics to get them, because embodiment is frequently not used to imply such.

 

[Wokistan]

Abstract Existence Type 3 problems

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I'll repeat and continue the same stuff in your thread.

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

Type 3 is likely getting removed, so I guess this should be closed.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I will do so.