Nigh-Omnipotence Page Creation

[Jin2188]

I have permission from @Antvasima to make this post.

I desire to make this page due to the lack of clarification regarding High 1-A+ Types 1 and 2. The only information we have about High 1-A+ on the wiki (that I know of at least, please let me know if I'm wrong) is just a few sentences on the Tiering System:

The apex of this tier, represented also by a "+" modifier in their Attack Potency section (High Outerverse level+), corresponds to characters whose power encompasses meta-qualities, meta-meta-qualities, and any and all conceivable extensions of this process, being on a which in which their power influences the space of all logically possible worlds ("Logical space," where the laws governing it are the three laws of thought), being characters who either have the ability to actualize arbitrarily large worlds, or embody the framework of such worlds itself.

That said, characters who embody the framework of all possible worlds properly speaking may be rightly considered more powerful than those that can simply create arbitrarily big possible worlds while nevertheless existing in one.

That's it.

We don't even really have proper standards for what qualifies as High 1-A+, we kinda just take verses at their word when they say that a cosmological structure contains "all possible worlds" or transcends "all possible layers of existence" (Yes, I know it's more complicated than that, my point is that while we have clearly defined standards for every other tier, including everything else in Tier 1 and especially Tier 0, we don't really have that much for High 1-A+).

There's also the recent argument between @Agnaa and @DontTalkDT over the tiering of Logic Manipulation in this thread. The fact that we have actual staff confused over this stuff is utterly unacceptable.

My solution: Create a Nigh-Omnipotence explanation page to clarify the specifics and standards for both types of High 1-A+. This would kill two birds with one stone; it would clarify High 1-A+ for all users, and would solve my 3rd issue I put forward in this thread (helps with searching, since people can simply look up characters with the Nigh-Omnipotence ability).

Here is a very bare-bones prototype page. I have not put any standards or real clarification yet, because I want staff input on such things.

Some things I want to work out:

What specifically qualifies a character for High 1-A+? It seems that right now, all that is really needed is a blanket statement of "all possible worlds" or "all logical possibility" (such as with several Lord of the Rings profiles). I personally disagree with this, but if it is to be the standard, it should be stated more clearly.

What is the relationship between types 1 and 2 of High 1-A+? Currently we consider Type 2 to be more powerful than Type 1, but this could potentially change once standards are put in place, so this is still an issue that should be discussed.

Can a High 1-A+ Type 2 structure be manipulated? Or should we go with @Agnaa's and apparently @Ultima_Reality's view that if such a structure is mutated, it cannot be the framework of all possible worlds?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Lmao. I assume you picked the "Nigh-Omnipotence" name just to be scandalous.

FWIW I'm in agreement that High 1-A+ can be ironed out much more thoroughly than it is right now, so I don't mind clarifying standards and setting down more in-depth explanations and whatnot, but I see little point in making an actual page out of it. Believe a section in the Tiering System FAQ already ought to do the trick after maybe some discussion.

That's all I have to say as of now. I'm still pretty busy (And relatively uninterested in wiki matters) so my appearances here will be sparse, but I'll maybe show up again tomorrow to look/think over it more thoroughly.

 

[Jin2188]

Lmao. I assume you picked the "Nigh-Omnipotence" name just to be scandalous.

FWIW I'm in agreement that High 1-A+ can be ironed out much more thoroughly than it is right now, so I don't mind clarifying standards and setting down more in-depth explanations and whatnot, but I see little point in making an actual page out of it. Believe a section in the Tiering System FAQ already ought to do the trick after maybe some discussion.

That's all I have to say as of now. I'm still pretty busy (And relatively uninterested in wiki matters) so my appearances here will be sparse, but I'll maybe show up again tomorrow to look/think over it more thoroughly.

Fair. I didn't pick the name to be scandalous though, it just seemed like an obvious pick for something one step down from true Omnipotence.

I do believe a standalone ability page would be better, because it helps with indexing and could have multiple types, but I'd settle for additional clarification regardless of the form it takes.

 

[Agnaa]

We don't even really have proper standards for what qualifies as High 1-A+, we kinda just take verses at their word when they say that a cosmological structure contains "all possible worlds" or transcends "all possible layers of existence" (Yes, I know it's more complicated than that, my point is that while we have clearly defined standards for every other tier, including everything else in Tier 1 and especially Tier 0, we don't really have that much for High 1-A+).

I don't view those standards as improper.

There's also the recent argument between @Agnaa and @DontTalkDT over the tiering of Logic Manipulation in this thread. The fact that we have actual staff confused over this stuff is utterly unacceptable.

It's not confusion, it's disagreement about whether "all possible worlds" can meaningfully vary between series or not.

It is practically impossible to have standards that none of our staff members disagree with.

My solution: Create a Nigh-Omnipotence explanation page to clarify the specifics and standards for both types of High 1-A+. This would kill two birds with one stone; it would clarify High 1-A+ for all users, and would solve my 3rd issue I put forward in this thread (helps with searching, since people can simply look up characters with the Nigh-Omnipotence ability).

I still prefer the solutions I put forward in that thread.

What specifically qualifies a character for High 1-A+? It seems that right now, all that is really needed is a blanket statement of "all possible worlds" or "all logical possibility" (such as with several Lord of the Rings profiles). I personally disagree with this, but if it is to be the standard, it should be stated more clearly.

More on the latter, as "all mathematically possible" lands at Low 1-A.

What is the relationship between types 1 and 2 of High 1-A+?

The same as the relationship between "equal to any arbitrarily high finite number" and "the set of all finite numbers".

Currently we consider Type 2 to be more powerful than Type 1, but this could potentially change once standards are put in place, so this is still an issue that should be discussed.

I don't think it could. There hasn't been even a hint of a reason put forward for Type 1 being more powerful.

---

In conclusion, I think we should take no action based on this thread.

 

[Jin2188]

I don't view those standards as improper.

They're too loose and nebulous in my opinion, and if we're going to make them more strict, we need to properly clarify them as well.

It's not confusion, it's disagreement about whether "all possible worlds" can meaningfully vary between series or not.

It is practically impossible to have standards that none of our staff members disagree with.

Fair, but I didn't really see it as just disagreement, but as a lack of understanding (no offense meant by this, just to be safe) regarding how "all possible worlds" functions as a cosmological concept, which I believe stems from a lack of standards and clarification on said concept.

I still prefer the solutions I put forward in that thread.

Fair. I'm not saying I dislike your solutions, I was just adding some extra reasons to have a standalone page.

More on the latter, as "all mathematically possible" lands at Low 1-A.

My point is that the standards are too nebulous. They need to be clearly stated somewhere.

The same as the relationship between "equal to any arbitrarily high finite number" and "the set of all finite numbers".

This needs to be officially clarified then, in a non-nebulous manner.

I don't think it could. There hasn't been even a hint of a reason put forward for Type 1 being more powerful.

Maybe not, but we could consider them equal in strength, especially considering that (iirc) you believe the set of all possible worlds to be immutable, which would prevent a character that embodies said set from being meaningfully more powerful than someone who can actualize arbitrarily large possible worlds, outside of the former probably having Omnipresence and/or Beyond-Dimensional Existence.

 

[Agnaa]

Fair, but I didn't really see it as just disagreement, but as a lack of understanding (no offense meant by this, just to be safe) regarding how "all possible worlds" functions as a cosmological concept, which I believe stems from a lack of standards and clarification on said concept.

I think our standards are relatively clear on this. We discussed this extensively in the thread establishing the modern tiering system, where Ultima explicitly brought up this immutability, with his vision for the tiering system being the one we agreed upon.

Our page on Omnipotence elaborates on this. Largely in the context of a Tier 0 character, but that's still relevant, because Tier 0 is the prime mover for the space, High 1-A+ Type 2 is the space itself, and High 1-A+ Type 1 is the ability to be able to take arbitrarily significant actions within that space.

Essentially, I think the issue is simply that DT disagrees, rather than it coming from a lack of understanding, clarification, or prior discussion.

My point is that the standards are too nebulous. They need to be clearly stated somewhere.

If you want an extra sentence or two clarifying some things idrc, but I really don't think this needs its own page.

This needs to be officially clarified then, in a non-nebulous manner.

I don't think it does.

But if we are to, I'd prefer we do it while shuffling around the tiers themselves, rather than creating a new page.

Maybe not, but we could consider them equal in strength, especially considering that (iirc) you believe the set of all possible worlds to be immutable, which would prevent a character that embodies said set from being meaningfully more powerful than someone who can actualize arbitrarily large possible worlds, outside of the former probably having Omnipresence and/or Beyond-Dimensional Existence.

They wouldn't be more powerful in terms of the actions they could cause to happen, they would be more powerful in that their very existence would be immutable to those weaker characters, while still being vulnerable to the prime mover's (un)making.

People have brought up concerns with this largely being durability rather than AP, but we have other threads where this issue can be discussed, since it would ultimately need a bigger fix than just creating another page.

 

[Jin2188]

I think our standards are relatively clear on this. We discussed this extensively in the thread establishing the modern tiering system, where Ultima explicitly brought up this immutability, with his vision for the tiering system being the one we agreed upon.

Clarify this on the wiki itself then, either in the Tiering System FAQ or as a standalone page, don't rely on people digging in the forums.

Our page on Omnipotence elaborates on this.

Not well enough in my opinion. It's too focused on Tier 0 and doesn't properly make clear the relationship between Tier 0 and the two types of High 1-A+.

If you want an extra sentence or two clarifying some things idrc, but I really don't think this needs its own page.

I definitely thing we need more than just an extra sentence or two, but if you don't want it to be it's own page, that's fine, it can be clarified in the Tiering System FAQ.

I don't think it does.

But if we are to, I'd prefer we do it while shuffling around the tiers themselves, rather than creating a new page.

Fine by me. We can come back to this after we finish talks in that thread.

They wouldn't be more powerful in terms of the actions they could cause to happen, they would be more powerful in that their very existence would be immutable to those weaker characters, while still being vulnerable to the prime mover's (un)making.

People have brought up concerns with this largely being durability rather than AP, but we have other threads where this issue can be discussed, since it would ultimately need a bigger fix than just creating another page.

A tier that deals purely in durability and not AP doesn't really deserve to be a standalone tier at all imo. At that point it's just Type 1 but Omnipresent.

 

[Agnaa]

Clarify this on the wiki itself then, either in the Tiering System FAQ or as a standalone page, don't rely on people digging in the forums.

Not well enough in my opinion. It's too focused on Tier 0 and doesn't properly make clear the relationship between Tier 0 and the two types of High 1-A+.

There, I wasn't talking about the "relationship between" them, I was talking about High 1-A+ Type 2's immutability, the thing DT was contending in that thread. I think that is well clarified on the wiki itself.

As I said, I don't think we need to explicitly outline the relationship between tiers. What ultimately matters is how characters qualify for them, not a precise analogue for exactly how different their levels of strength are..

A tier that deals purely in durability and not AP doesn't really deserve to be a standalone tier at all imo. At that point it's just Type 1 but Omnipresent.

We described this idea in this thread, before deciding that it was worth its own one. Such a thread has not been created yet.

 

[Jin2188]

There, I wasn't talking about the "relationship between" them, I was talking about High 1-A+ Type 2's immutability, the thing DT was contending in that thread. I think that is well clarified on the wiki itself.

I disagree, and if you're going to point to the Omnipotence page, which mainly focuses on Tier 0, you have to talk about the relationship between it and High 1-A+ to get back to the subject matter. The page covers and adequately explains a Tier 0's immutability, but fails to do so for High 1-A+ Type 2. Explaining the relationship between the two would fix this.

We described this idea in this thread, before deciding that it was worth its own one. Such a thread has not been created yet.

I could create a thread if that's okay with you, or we could discuss it in this thread, since the subject matter is similar.

 

[Agnaa]

I disagree, and if you're going to point to the Omnipotence page, which mainly focuses on Tier 0, you have to talk about the relationship between it and High 1-A+ to get back to the subject matter. The page covers and adequately explains a Tier 0's immutability, but fails to do so for High 1-A+ Type 2. Explaining the relationship between the two would fix this.

It very much does. It talks extensively about all possible worlds, which is the domain of the High 1-A+, not the 0.

Hence why, when the Omnipotence page is linked from the Tiering System page, it is introduced in this way:

See this page for more information on both this tier and the preceding one.

I could create a thread if that's okay with you, or we could discuss it in this thread, since the subject matter is similar.

I think they're sufficiently different topics that it should have its own thread.

 

[Jin2188]

I think they're sufficiently different topics that it should have its own thread.

Aight. Is that a go ahead to make a thread then?

It very much does. It talks extensively about all possible worlds, which is the domain of the High 1-A+, not the 0.

Yes, but it does so in order to properly introduce Tier 0. If High 1-A+ Type 2 is the space of everything a Tier 0 can create, as Ultima describes it, then it follows that it is also just as immutable as a Tier 0, however this relation is not really made clear anywhere on the wiki (that I know of, at least).

So the way I see it, there are three options:
1. Make a Nigh-Omnipotence page
2. Add a section in the Tiering System FAQ
3. Edit the Omnipotence page to properly clarify definitions and standards for High 1-A+, not just Tier 0.

I'm fine with any of these options, as long as it helps clear things up.

 

[Agnaa]

Aight. Is that a go ahead to make a thread then?

I, personally, don't approve posts or threads unless I've seen a draft first. But some other staff member might.

Yes, but it does so in order to properly introduce Tier 0. If High 1-A+ Type 2 is the space of everything a Tier 0 can create, as Ultima describes it, then it follows that it is also just as immutable as a Tier 0, however this relation is not really made clear anywhere on the wiki (that I know of, at least).

So the way I see it, there are three options:
1. Make a Nigh-Omnipotence page
2. Add a section in the Tiering System FAQ
3. Edit the Omnipotence page to properly clarify definitions and standards for High 1-A+, not just Tier 0.

I'm fine with any of these options, as long as it helps clear things up.

I don't think we need to be that handhold-y. Saying that High 1-A+ involves all possible worlds, saying that a certain page explains Tier 0 and the previous tier, then having that page go into detail about all possible worlds seems like quite enough.

 

[Jin2188]

I don't think we need to be that handhold-y. Saying that High 1-A+ involves all possible worlds, saying that a certain page explains Tier 0 and the previous tier, then having that page go into detail about all possible worlds seems like quite enough.

Part of the reason I'm proposing this is because I myself was confused about this stuff for a while. I think it's better to make things as clear and upfront as possible rather than just be like "eh, most people will get it".

Anyways, I'm going to bed, it's like 2:30 in the morning for me lmao.

I, personally, don't approve posts or threads unless I've seen a draft first. But some other staff member might.

I won't be available tomorrow because I have college, but I can draft something up on Tuesday.

 

[Antvasima]

Lmao. I assume you picked the "Nigh-Omnipotence" name just to be scandalous.

FWIW I'm in agreement that High 1-A+ can be ironed out much more thoroughly than it is right now, so I don't mind clarifying standards and setting down more in-depth explanations and whatnot, but I see little point in making an actual page out of it. Believe a section in the Tiering System FAQ already ought to do the trick after maybe some discussion.

That's all I have to say as of now. I'm still pretty busy (And relatively uninterested in wiki matters) so my appearances here will be sparse, but I'll maybe show up again tomorrow to look/think over it more thoroughly.

I agree with Ultima's take on this.

 

[Jin2188]

We described this idea in this thread, before deciding that it was worth its own one. Such a thread has not been created yet.

I have a draft for the thread ready, if you will take a look.

 

[Jin2188]

bump

 

[Agnaa]

I can't see that, since it's in your sandbox.

 

[Jin2188]

I can't see that, since it's in your sandbox.

Mb, should I post it here then?

 

[Agnaa]

You should probably DM it to me, generally. But in this specific case, since it's kind of an offshoot, you could post it here.

 

[Jin2188]

You should probably DM it to me, generally. But in this specific case, since it's kind of an offshoot, you could post it here.

I can't DM for some reason, so I'll just post it here

 

[Jin2188]

Title: Rethinking High 1-A+ and Tier 0

Description:

---

Making this thread on behalf of @Agnaa, with his permission. (Once I have it, of course)

I've received word of a discussion about High 1-A+ Type 2 on this thread, in which it was suggested that said discussion should have its own thread. I intend for this to be that thread.

I personally believe that we should be tiering things based primarily on causal influence, not size alone. If a character embodies a mountain, then they might have Mountain level durability, but it would be nonsense to give them Mountain level AP just because they're a mountain, we only give that tier if they're actually capable of destroying and/or creating a mountain.

This gets even worse when we consider that, with the way we have things set up right now, it's literally impossible for anyone or anything to even qualify for High 1-A+ Type 2 AP to begin with, since if the set of all possible worlds is manipulated (except for by a Tier 0), then that is considered an anti-feat for it being the set of all possible worlds to begin with.

Speaking of Tier 0, if that is to be a meaningful tier at all, then it should be able to exert some kind of additional causal influence beyond that of lower tiers, but this premise is contradicted in the Omnipotence page:

Q: Is it a disqualifier for a would-be Tier 0 to be incapable of doing certain things?

A: Depends. For reasons already extensively discussed, a character being unable to accomplish contradictions is no impediment whatsoever to being Tier 0. In general, then, such things are only anti-feats if they imply a deficiency on the character's causal power, which is to say: There is some object or state-of-affairs X, existing in potentiality, that the character is incapable of bringing about. Contradictions are not such. However, if the verse does recognize contradictory objects as existing in potentiality, then that would indeed be a disqualifier.

Why would a Tier 0 be limited to objects or states-of-affairs that exist in potentiality, when it is the source and creator of potentiality to begin with? Not only is that a contradiction in-and-of itself (The Tier 0 literally created and defined the boundaries of the space of all possible worlds, yet is for some reason limited to operating within that space), but it also seems to imply that a Tier 0 has no more causal influence than a High 1-A+ Type 1 character, and therefore the whole idea of Tier 0 is completely unjustified.

In order to preserve consistency in the tiering system, I only really see two options:
1. Be more lenient and allow for there to be High 1-A+ Type 2 AP, in the sense of actually manipulating the space of all possible worlds.
2. Delete High 1-A+ Type 2 as a tier, and therefore make Tier 0 the only tier able to affect the space of all possible worlds (since, you know, it literally created it).

I personally prefer the second option, since the first option basically makes Tier 0 completely irrelevant as a powerscaling concept.

---

I can edit it if you have problems.

 

[Agnaa]

I find your post contradictory (you don't at all examine how a Tier 0 lacks Tier 0 AP) and kinda missing the point. I think it might be better for me to make the thread at this rate, if that's alright with you.

 

[Jin2188]

I find your post contradictory

Q: Is it a disqualifier for a would-be Tier 0 to be incapable of doing certain things?

A: Depends. For reasons already extensively discussed, a character being unable to accomplish contradictions is no impediment whatsoever to being Tier 0. In general, then, such things are only anti-feats if they imply a deficiency on the character's causal power, which is to say: There is some object or state-of-affairs X, existing in potentiality, that the character is incapable of bringing about. Contradictions are not such. However, if the verse does recognize contradictory objects as existing in potentiality, then that would indeed be a disqualifier.

That is not to say that it is necessarily an impossible or illogical object, however, as it is also coherent to think of it as grounding the framework of logic itself as its exemplar.

In other words, this would be a view of the Absolute as the very archetype and paradigm of logic, in which anything whatsoever can only be logical insofar as it bears likeness to, and participates in it.

I fail to see how this is in any significant way different (let alone superior) to High 1-A+ Type 2. Maybe I'm just stupid and need it laid out for me, but it's just not clicking.

My main point is that I find the Omnipotence page itself to be contradictory, or at the very least a bit confusing. We place Tier 0 as superior to all possible worlds:

As stated above, an omnipotent in this sense precedes and transcends essence and multiplicity, and so encompasses everything falling within such categories. Naturally, then, it is not constrained by any factors external to itself, and so if it is to act as the source and creator of reality (Which it might not), then, this activity is likewise completely unhindered by anything whatsoever.

Since there cannot be any multiplicity at all outside of that being's creative activity, this entails that the act in question must be a radical production leaving absolutely nothing out. Such a sourcing would constitute the creation not simply of particular objects, but also of essences themselves, whether those be reducible to such objects or not. Furthermore, essence, as definition, is the determiner of whether something is a possibility at all (e.g. A round square is an impossible object because "To be round" and "To be square" are mutually exclusive definitions), and therefore, in being the creator of essence, an omnipotent would also be the foundation of possibility itself.

That being the case, it is possible to say that it is prior to the modal category of possibility.

And yet we still say that it's restrained by the space of all possible worlds (can't do contradictions, because they don't exist in that space) despite the fact that it is prior to and literally created said space.

(you don't at all examine how a Tier 0 lacks Tier 0 AP)

One of my questions is what even qualifies as "Tier 0 AP", because if we're going to say that a Tier 0 can't realize contradictions, that makes it no more powerful than High 1-A+, which makes the tier itself superfluous. Since a Tier 0 created the space of all possible worlds, Tier 0 AP could be the power to manipulate that space, but that would mean giving them the ability to realize contradictions, and making the inability to do so an anti-feat.

and kinda missing the point.

Tier 0 and High 1-A+ are heavily intertwined, so whatever we decide about one will affect the other. I fail to see how this is "missing the point".

I think it might be better for me to make the thread at this rate, if that's alright with you.

Can you give me permission to reply then, so I can share my thoughts? I'd be fine with it in that case.

 

[Agnaa]

I fail to see how this is in any significant way different (let alone superior) to High 1-A+ Type 2. Maybe I'm just stupid and need it laid out for me, but it's just not clicking.

My main point is that I find the Omnipotence page itself to be contradictory, or at the very least a bit confusing. We place Tier 0 as superior to all possible worlds:

And yet we still say that it's restrained by the space of all possible worlds (can't do contradictions, because they don't exist in that space) despite the fact that it is prior to and literally created said space.

It's not restrained by the possible worlds, it is a Tier 0 because it is the cause/source/prime mover for all possible worlds.

If those "all possible worlds" aren't actually all possible worlds, then it's not a Tier 0 feat. That's not because the "possible worlds" they created are suppressing the "Tier 0", it's because they lack access to the true set of all possible worlds.

One of my questions is what even qualifies as "Tier 0 AP", because if we're going to say that a Tier 0 can't realize contradictions, that makes it no more powerful than High 1-A+, which makes the tier itself superfluous. Since a Tier 0 created the space of all possible worlds, Tier 0 AP could be the power to manipulate that space, but that would mean giving them the ability to realize contradictions, and making the inability to do so an anti-feat.

It's superior to High 1-A+ because it is what gives those High 1-A+ worlds, in their entirety, substance. It is the prime mover, the cause, for those worlds.

Tier 0 and High 1-A+ are heavily intertwined, so whatever we decide about one will affect the other. I fail to see how this is "missing the point".

That's not why, actually. I more said you were missing the point because it's an even bigger topic than that.

Can you give me permission to reply then, so I can share my thoughts? I'd be fine with it in that case.

As I said, I only approve posts on a per-post basis after seeing them, once I make sure that it brings a new idea to the table.

But you won't be able to write a response for me to approve/disapprove until I've already posted the thread.

Which leaves us in a bit of a bind.

 

[Jin2188]

It's not restrained by the possible worlds, it is a Tier 0 because it is the cause/source/prime mover for all possible worlds.

If those "all possible worlds" aren't actually all possible worlds, then it's not a Tier 0 feat. That's not because the "possible worlds" they created are suppressing the "Tier 0", it's because they lack access to the true set of all possible worlds.

I'm still confused.

High 1-A+ can't realize contradictions, because they're outside the possibility space that they can create worlds in. Same thing for Tier 0. How are they not functionally the same then in terms of AP?

It's superior to High 1-A+ because it is what gives those High 1-A+ worlds, in their entirety, substance. It is the prime mover, the cause, for those worlds.

So what is Tier 0 AP then? Because what I'm getting from this is that there is no such thing, since it looks like Tier 0 is based entirely on a stabilization feat.

That's not why, actually. I more said you were missing the point because it's an even bigger topic than that.

So too narrow of a topic then? I don't really understand what you're saying here.

As I said, I only approve posts on a per-post basis after seeing them, once I make sure that it brings a new idea to the table.

But you won't be able to write a response for me to approve/disapprove until I've already posted the thread.

Which leaves us in a bit of a bind.

Maybe I should just edit my thread to address the concerns you have. This current discussion is already something that should be on that thread anyways, so we should figure out what we're doing and move it there.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm still confused.

High 1-A+ can't realize contradictions, because they're outside the possibility space that they can create worlds in. Same thing for Tier 0. How are they not functionally the same then in terms of AP?

Because Tier 0 characters can actualise the entire space of possible worlds, while High 1-A+ characters can only "alter" events in an arbitrarily large subset of it.

So what is Tier 0 AP then? Because what I'm getting from this is that there is no such thing, since it looks like Tier 0 is based entirely on a stabilization feat.

Yeah, that's part of what I want the thread to touch on.

So too narrow of a topic then? I don't really understand what you're saying here.

Yeah.

Maybe I should just edit my thread to address the concerns you have. This current discussion is already something that should be on that thread anyways, so we should figure out what we're doing and move it there.

At that point I would just be rewriting the thread for you, and I've already got a draft of it ready:

---

Problem​

There are a few oddities presented by the current setup of our Tiering System.

Despite tier being equivalent to Attack Potency, and thus, apparently representing how much a character can create/destroy, there are some tiers which don't properly line up with that:

Tier 1-A​

Characters or objects residing in higher states of existence surpassing material composition as a whole

1-A and above is about a character's state of existence, without requiring them to be able to physically effect lower worlds to a high degree of destruction. Although, admittedly, one could excuse this by saying that them doing anything at all involving their more-real bodies entails them exerting 1-A AP. But this defence becomes less convincing for abstract/non-physical characters.

Tier High 1-A+ Type 2​

The apex of this tier, represented also by a "+" modifier in their Attack Potency section (High Outerverse level+), corresponds to characters whose power encompasses meta-qualities, meta-meta-qualities, and any and all conceivable extensions of this process, being on a which in which their power influences the space of all logically possible worlds ("Logical space," where the laws governing it are the three laws of thought), being characters who either have the ability to actualize arbitrarily large worlds, or embody the framework of such worlds itself.

That said, characters who embody the framework of all possible worlds properly speaking may be rightly considered more powerful than those that can simply create arbitrarily big possible worlds while nevertheless existing in one.

By "Type 2" I am referring to characters who embody the framework of all possible worlds.

Such characters cannot physically exert a change across all of themselves. If there was a change they could cause upon themselves, resulting in there being different possible worlds before and after, then they were not truly embodying "all possible worlds" in at least one of those states.

In other words, such characters would have durability far exceeding the space they can effect.

Tier 0​

Entities who are completely transcendent over any and all forms of hierarchical extension. More specifically: They not only encompass the collection of all possible "qualities" represented by High 1-A+, but also exceed it utterly, existing beyond any and all distinctions between ontologies and any division between objects. They are beyond differentiation, changeless, indivisible, ineffable, self-sufficient and completely unsurpassable.

As such beings are changeless, a change cannot be exerted on an entity of their scale. While such characters could be the creators of a High 1-A+ Type 2 reality, they could not ever create/destroy a Tier 0.

So, on top of their durability exceeding that which they can effect, this rating is not possible to reach in terms of attack potency, if we're being strict about that only encompassing creation/destruction.

Solutions​

As far as I see it, there are three consistent solutions we could have for this:

1. Allow size/state to qualify by itself past a certain point (probably High 3-A, Low 2-C, or 1-A; but it could start at 10-C or even lower).
2. Allow size/state to qualify by itself, but place a certain conditional on that, and also rate how much they can affect. So certain profiles could be "High 1-A, 0 via size" or "4-C, Low 2-C via size".
3. Make current Tier 0 a durability-exclusive rating.

Out of these, I prefer 2>1>3

---

I'd rather just post mine than have you hacksaw parts of it onto yours.

 

[Jin2188]

Fair. I'll try and get a bureaucrat's permission or something.

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, I've posted the thread.