One Piece: Shadow Erasure

[KingTempest]

This is primarily a continuation of this thread, where a thread that intended to gain a regeneration factor from Existence Erasure, but ended up being contested based on other words and showings.

It ended up leading to different talks of "is this truly EE", and "I'll make a thread based on it". Instead of that, I'll just tackle it here, in order to organize the arguments on the current side, in hope of fleshing out the ability on the profile.

Moria is able to remove the shadows of people, and that puts the character in a very weird state where they are ignored by light. Light passes through them and doesn't produce a shadow, and it doesn't bounce off of them into mirrors or cameras.
Instead, that shadow is solidified and placed into a different body, and you aren't capable of forming a shadow.

A more harsh phenomenon brought by that is when sunlight hits them. When sunlight hits them, they flat out stop existing.
Usually this was brought up from the mistranslations, but these are the translations done by Stephen Paul, which are usually better than the Viz ones, since he took over Viz.

"One can no longer exist in the world of light."
"I witnessed a man with the same condition vanish underneath the bright sun...!!"
"If I were to leave this sea with you, t'would only be a matter of time before my body disintegrated."
"However, a person who's shadow has been drawn out will be extinguished/vanish if hit by direct sunlight."
"You'll be disintegrated!!!"
"Help me! My hands are vanishing!!"
"Their bodies are disintegrating!!!"
"Aaaahhh!! They're vanishing!!"
"When the sun hit us, we were on the verge of vanishing,"
"I'm just glad nobody vanished on us."

The counters to said thread are things like "even though it says they're erased, they turned to dust, it says things other than erasure like 'disintegration'," yadayadayada
Basically Existence Erasure vs Deconstruction or whatever other method of destruction.

The statements brought up in the previous thread of "melting" and such make no sense, as they were mistranslations AND they clearly weren't melting.

Now, I've scanned the manga, and the 2 statements that speak about existing have been translated by @Arc7Kuroi (thank you Arc), mainly the ones underlined.

"Having one’s “shadow” taken from you means one won’t be able to exist in a world of light."
This notes that they just can't exist in light.
Now normally this could mean "they're weak to light", which is true, but that would just be vague and it would point to things like vampires in light or fish out of water, who clearly don't get erased from existence when they're in those places..
But this next statement contextualizes it much more than the previous one.

"Getting hit by the morning sun had caused its “existence” to start disappearing but by a hair’s breadth, returning to the shadows resuscitated it."
This notes that their existences were actually being erased, as their existences in itself started to disappear.

These would solidify that their existences were being erased.

The sayings of characters disintegrating would mean that they're being broken apart, which, in this scenario, wouldn't really be a counter to existence erasure.
Throughout fiction, characters with statements of erasure show the visual effects of leaving small amounts of dust in the air. Those aren't counters to EE, just an issue with the visual showing.
Just like how Foxy's lasers are beams of photons but they... don't look like them at all. Doesn't really counter it.

Because in that same breath, those characters were stated to be "vanishing". And the definition of vanishing is to disappear suddenly and completely, which fits with being erased.

The only statement we get outside of the manga for this is the one from the magazine's explanation on the devil fruit (much more reliable than some randoms screaming about effects), which says
"However, a person who's shadow has been drawn out will be extinguished/vanish if hit by direct sunlight."
And them vanishing ends up leading towards them disappearing from existence, or EE.

This is supported by the fact that there needs to be a part of the body that still exists in order for them to be resurrected, and if they were turned to dust, that wouldn't be a problem. Them being dust would still give their shadows something to latch back on to, which wouldn't be an issue if their dust was still there for them to connect with.

So on that note, it's confirmed that
A. In the scenarios shown here from Chapter 443, 482, and 483, the characters aren't just being vaporized, they're actually being erased from existence.
B. The statements of them vanishing aid the statements of their existences disappearing.

Now where does that work in the grand scheme of things?
This would solidly be Existence Erasure.

Therefore, the phenomenon where a person without a shadow stands in the path of sunlight, their existence would end up being erased.

This would count at limited EE, as this only happens when the sun is out and requires him to take their shadows and stand in the sun

Agree: KingTempest, Planck69, UchihaSlayer96
Disagree: Crabwhale, Deagonx,
Neutral:

 

[Godernet]

If this were accepted on a profile it would be limited EE since it requires removing the shadow and the sun hitting the shadowless target to erase someone.

 

[KingTempest]

If this were accepted on a profile it would be limited EE since it requires removing the shadow and the sun hitting the shadowless target to erase someone.

It's not limited, it's just a very situational one
That's like saying someone has limited lightning manipulation because they need to make clouds first

 

[Godernet]

It's not limited, it's just a very situational one
That's like saying someone has limited lightning manipulation because they need to make clouds first

that would be limited lightning Manip then too

Because the ability is restricted by a set of rules or conditions to be used effectively or has flaws that make it less effective than other abilities of that class.

At least that’s how I’ve mostly seen the limited rating used.

Tho I could be misremembering.

 

[KingTempest]

that would be limited lightning Manip then too

Because the ability is restricted by a set of rules or conditions to be used effectively or has flaws that make it less effective than other abilities of that class.

At least that’s how I’ve mostly seen the limited rating used.

Tho I could be misremembering.

Meh, aight then

Limited is fine

 

[CloverDragon03]

This seems fine yeah, solidly Existence Erasure or at least Limited Existence Erasure depending on how the conditions for it are treated

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Limited sounds fine given the mechanics of shadows

 

[LordGinSama]

Looks good.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

If this were accepted on a profile it would be limited EE since it requires removing the shadow and the sun hitting the shadowless target to erase someone.

Agree on this.
It should be on the profile but only if it's limited.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

agree with the thread and agree with it being just full on existence erasure (just an explanation on how and when it works is fine), there's no restriction of the effects of the ability when it's used

A limited for example would be if you only get ereased for 5 hours or something, giving it a limited based off of it being a byproduct doesn't make any sense...

Otherwise something like luffy creating fire is also limited because it's a byproduct of the acceleration or any naruto character needing to make signs first to create the ability also would make it limited and so on

 

[Godernet]

agree with the thread and agree with it being just full on existence ereasure (just an explanation on how and when it works is fine), there's no restriction of the effects of the ability when it's used

A limited for example would be if you only get ereased for 5 hours or something, giving it a limited based off of it being a byproduct doesn't make any sense...

Otherwise something like luffy creating fire is also limited because it's a byproduct of the acceleration or any naruto character needing to make signs first to create the ability also would make it limited and so on

Those aren’t the same thing at all.

Naruto characters can create jutsu on their own at their leisure with hand signs

Luffy can create fire with a combination of his abilities whenever he wants.

Moria cant erase people from existence if there isn’t a sun out. His ability to erase people is dependent on external factors that are outside of his control and won’t always be present for him in combat scenarios to use this way along with him needing to prep this reaction by taking their shadows. That’s what makes it limited.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Those aren’t the same thing at all.

Naruto characters can create jutsu in their own with hand signs

Luffy can create fire with a combination of his abilities.

Moria cant erase people from existence if there isn’t a sun out. His ability to erase people is dependent on external factors that are outside of his control and won’t always be present for him in combat scenarios to use this way. That’s what makes it limited.

That still doesn't make sense... as he's the one able to make the ability/effects happen when taking away your shadow, the ability (Existence Erasure) itself isn't limited...

The justification is what clarifies how the ability functions... Let's say you are on a planet that's always day time... does it now undo it being limited?

Ahh man, I'm too tired to debate... Especially this, me bye

neutral for now on how it's listed on the profile

 

[Excellence616]

I agree with Limited

 

[karo_senpaii]

That still doesn't make sense... as he's the one able to make the ability/effects happen when taking away your shadow, the ability (Existence Erasure) itself isn't limited...

The justification is what clarifies how the ability functions... Let's say you are on a planet that's always day time... does it now undo it being limited?

Ahh man, I'm too tired to debate... Especially this, me bye

neutral for now on how it's listed on the profile

Bro isn't this kinda how red nichirin blade in demon slayer has limited regen negation ?

 

[Deceived3596]

I'll go through the thread later since I just woke up.

 

[Kidkinsey]

Limited seems fine

 

[Deceived3596]

I have read through the evidence provided, the argumentation given, and the conclusion reached. I still find myself disagreeing with Existence Erasure.

I'll structure my main contentions in two, easily digestible points.

Presumptions:
My initial issue with this thread is that the OP presumes definitions which aren't generally used by the text. An example of this is with the constant usage of the word "vanish". Vanish, semantically, doesn't necessarily describe the complete removal of something from ontological reality. Actually, it just generally describes the complete disappearance of something, especially under a physical or emotional context. We can't presume an actual separate description of this word unless we have confounding evidence which supports that divergence from the common definition.

Same would extend to words like "extinguished" or "no longer exist."

Metaphysical Existence vs General Existence
My secondary issue, and probably my biggest contention with this thread is the complete misuage of the word "existence" and its definitions, alongside what Existence Erasure is descriptively.

A short, but important explanation of what the metaphysical and general definitions of Existence are: Existence, metaphysically, is the "state of being real or participating in reality." It's completely contrasted by nothingness or unreality, the "state of being unreal or not participating in reality." Existence, generally, just describes the continued state of living by an organism or structure. It's not necessarily biological life, but just the continued presence of that particular thing.

These two definitions are extremely important when discussing and validating erasure statements as Existence Erasure is the act of reducing someone from "being real or participating in reality" to being "unreal or not participating in reality." It's ontological erasure. It's because of this important distinction from the metaphysical definition and the general definition that we require sound and probable evidence when applying such abilities to profiles. A simple statement of your "existence" being erased or vanished, regardless of repetition, isn't enough for Existence Erasure.

So I ask, what exactly supports the interpretation of these characters being metaphysically erased compared to just their continued state of living being removed?

Conclusions
I still have other, smaller contentions with the OP. But those aren't important if the two stated points aren't addressed. If I see satisfactory counter arguments to the above points, I'm fine with conceding on the topic. Until then, I disagree with the rating. I might be fine with a "possibly' or "likely" rating, but I need to think about it more.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Metaphysical Existence vs General Existence
My secondary issue, and probably my biggest contention with this thread is the complete misuage of the word "existence" and its definitions, alongside what Existence Erasure is descriptively.

A short, but important explanation of what the metaphysical and general definitions of Existence are: Existence, metaphysically, is the "state of being real or participating in reality." It's completely contrasted by nothingness or unreality, the "state of being unreal or not participating in reality." Existence, generally, just describes the continued state of living by an organism or structure. It's not necessarily biological life, but just the continued presence of that particular thing.

These two definitions are extremely important when discussing and validating erasure statements as Existence Erasure is the act of reducing someone from "being real or participating in reality" to being "unreal or not participating in reality." It's ontological erasure. It's because of this important distinction from the metaphysical definition and the general definition that we require sound and probable evidence when applying such abilities to profiles. A simple statement of your "existence" being erased or vanished, regardless of repetition, isn't enough for Existence Erasure.

So I ask, what exactly supports the interpretation of these characters being metaphysically erased compared to just their continued state of living being removed?

uhh, no. The requirements for the ability is just that all physical traces of the target are removed.

 

[Deceived3596]

uhh, no. The requirements for the ability is just that all physical traces of the target are removed.

I hope you understand that "physical trace" is talking about one's physical existence correct? That's why the ability is called Existence Erasure, because you're erasing one's existence, the thing that allows them to participate in physical reality, from reality.

 

[KingTempest]

I have read through the evidence provided, the argumentation given, and the conclusion reached. I still find myself disagreeing with Existence Erasure.

I'll structure my main contentions in two, easily digestible points.

Presumptions:
My initial issue with this thread is that the OP presumes definitions which aren't generally used by the text. An example of this is with the constant usage of the word "vanish". Vanish, semantically, doesn't necessarily describe the complete removal of something from ontological reality. Actually, it just generally describes the complete disappearance of something, especially under a physical or emotional context. We can't presume an actual separate description of this word unless we have confounding evidence which supports that divergence from the common definition.

Same would extend to words like "extinguished" or "no longer exist."

Metaphysical Existence vs General Existence
My secondary issue, and probably my biggest contention with this thread is the complete misuage of the word "existence" and its definitions, alongside what Existence Erasure is descriptively.

A short, but important explanation of what the metaphysical and general definitions of Existence are: Existence, metaphysically, is the "state of being real or participating in reality." It's completely contrasted by nothingness or unreality, the "state of being unreal or not participating in reality." Existence, generally, just describes the continued state of living by an organism or structure. It's not necessarily biological life, but just the continued presence of that particular thing.

These two definitions are extremely important when discussing and validating erasure statements as Existence Erasure is the act of reducing someone from "being real or participating in reality" to being "unreal or not participating in reality." It's ontological erasure. It's because of this important distinction from the metaphysical definition and the general definition that we require sound and probable evidence when applying such abilities to profiles. A simple statement of your "existence" being erased or vanished, regardless of repetition, isn't enough for Existence Erasure.

So I ask, what exactly supports the interpretation of these characters being metaphysically erased compared to just their continued state of living being removed?

Conclusions
I still have other, smaller contentions with the OP. But those aren't important if the two stated points aren't addressed. If I see satisfactory counter arguments to the above points, I'm fine with conceding on the topic. Until then, I disagree with the rating. I might be fine with a "possibly' or "likely" rating, but I need to think about it more.

Umm no. The only thing that makes you quantify for existence erasure is to destroy their body to where nothing else exists anymore.

Existence Erasure is the simple power to remove something from existence, leaving nothing behind, a level of destruction beyond incineration, vaporization, and atomization. Rather than just reducing something to its constituent parts, this ability leaves absolutely nothing behind.

So idk where this "Metaphysical Existence vs General Existence" proof needed to come from. All you need to do is destroy their body to where no parts of it are remaining. You don't need to make them unreal.

 

[ssgengar]

Limited EE makes sense to me

 

[Planck69]

Existence Erasure is just wiping out a target from existence via supernatural means, with nothing being left of them.

The default is physical erasure. We just have enough cases of the mind, soul and concept being erased alongside them that people assume its a necessity.

 

[Deceived3596]

Umm no. The only thing that makes you quantify for existence erasure is to destroy their body to where nothing else exists anymore.

So idk where this "Metaphysical Existence vs General Existence" proof needed to come from. All you need to do is destroy their body to where no parts of it are remaining. You don't need to make them unreal.

The physical body is what is considered the property that allows you to participate in reality KT. Erasing someone is the act of removing all physical characteristics from them, their physical form, their matter that constitutes everything about their physical existence. It's the act of making them unreal. It's why when you erase someone from reality, and that person regenerates from it, we give them Low-Godly. It's because you're regenerating a fundamental aspect of your existence after it was destroyed.

 

[Crabwhale]

We literally do not see them being destroyed without a trace. We're told about a case of someone "vanishing" (with a vague image that doesn't show them completely gone) and then see another case of people almost "vanishing".

You can't just assume the sun would completely destroy them. There is nothing indicating that this isn't simple disintegration.

 

[KingTempest]

The physical body is what is considered the property that allows you to participate in reality KT. Erasing someone is the act of removing all physical characteristics from them, their physical form, their matter that constitutes everything about their physical existence. It's the act of making them unreal. It's why when you erase someone from reality, and that person regenerates from it, we give them Low-Godly. It's because you're regenerating a fundamental aspect of your existence.

We give them Low-Godly because their body is blatantly deleted and they can bring it back by thinking it back.

We literally do not see them being destroyed without a trace. We're told about a case of someone "vanishing" (with a vague image that doesn't show them completely gone) and then see another case of people almost "vanishing".

You can't just assume the sun would completely destroy them.

The fact that THEY SAY SO?
A statement is good enough.

You're disagreeing because the only visuals we see are them in the process of being deleted? When they say "our existence is being deleted" and the logic of "if the sun touches them", which would mean their whole body since the sun would touch their whole body.

What are you even arguing?

There is nothing indicating that this isn't simple disintegration.

Did you not read the OP?

 

[Dalesean027]

Agreed with OP here, Plank kinda seals it that this counts

 

[KingTempest]

Another thing

A simple statement of your "existence" being erased or vanished, regardless of repetition, isn't enough for Existence Erasure.

Who told you that?
That has been a thing for forever.

So unless you want to change what warrants EE, everything you're trying to claim are based on standards that don't exist

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Another thing

Who told you that?
That has been a thing for forever.

So unless you want to change what warrants EE, everything you're trying to claim are based on standards that don't exist

classic vsbw, gotta love it.

 

[Crabwhale]

The fact that THEY SAY SO?
A statement is good enough.

You're disagreeing because the only visuals we see are them in the process of being deleted? When they say "our existence is being deleted" and the logic of "if the sun touches them", which would mean their whole body since the sun would touch their whole body.

So you're just gonna keep ignoring the fact that this wording is too ambiguous and that we see them using other terms? Okay.

"Disintegration" is right there dude. You even quoted it multiple times. It literally means, per dictionary definition, break down into smaller parts. Not erase.

 

[Deceived3596]

We give them Low-Godly because their body is blatantly deleted and they can bring it back by thinking it back.

The people we give Low-Godly to are those who we assume are capable of regenerating their physical existence back from reality. It's purely a metaphysical regeneration. That's why all of the examples provided discuss metaphysical constructs. The Soul, The Mind etc.

It isn't just destroying the physical body "completely" or anything like that. Unless you can prove metaphysical destruction, this wouldn't be Existence Erasure.

If you don't believe me, we can ask other knowledgeable members on Existence Erasure.

 

[KingTempest]

So you're just gonna keep ignoring the fact that this wording is too ambiguous and that we see them using other terms? Okay.

Who's them? The randoms that said "OH NOOO HE'S DISINTEGRATING". You take their word over the people who were literally being disintegrated?

"Disintegration" is right there dude. You even quoted it multiple times. It literally means, per dictionary definition, break down into smaller parts. Not erase.

You do see the posterboy on the EE page right? Where the victim is destroyed so far that they're turned to particles then deleted?

 

[DaMonkeMan]

In the scenarios shown here from Chapter 443, 482, and 483

Link broke my blud.

 

[KingTempest]

The people we give Low-Godly to are those who we assume are capable of regenerating their physical existence back from reality. It's purely a metaphysical regeneration. That's why all of the examples provided discuss metaphysical constructs. The Soul, The Mind etc.

It isn't just destroying the physical body "completely" or anything like that. Unless you can prove metaphysical destruction, this wouldn't be Existence Erasure.

If you don't believe me, we can ask other knowledgeable members on Existence Erasure.

Call every admin and thread mod possible

 

[Planck69]

A statement of your existence being erased that's provably true and not hyperbole is enough. And if the statements are clear and reinforced enough, we don't use shaky visuals as an anti-feat (Unless Hakai is just macro-quantic Deconstruction since it sometimes breaks down opponents into light particles visually).

While Existence Erasure isn't as sensationalised as some other powers on the site, the common perception is pretty ridiculous. There are only a few core points of information to look at?

• Is it achieved via hax and supernatural means, not physical power?
• Is anything left behind after its used.

That's it. And frankly the wording is fine here, given how many times they're stated to vanish and the first statement talking about them no longer existing.

Limited Existence Erasure is fine to me.

 

[ssgengar]

Is disintegration not one of the most common methods of EE? I’m confused on that point

 

[SYPHe5D]

Is disintegration not one of the most common methods of EE? I’m confused on that point

In some cases it will be deconstruction, but it can be EE with added context like the one king tempest had shown.

 

[Deceived3596]

You're basically telling me that the usage of the word "existence" has zero correlation with the metaphysical definition of existence despite the fact the ability quite literally deals with erasing metaphysical properties from reality. It's why it's discussed with metaphysical constructs in relation to regeneration, it's why when you're erased from existence, and you can continue on "living." You're granted Non-Physical Existence, because you aren't participating in reality anymore, you're entirely distinct from it.

I don't plan on debating this topic ad nauseam, especially as someone who isn't a mod. So I'll go contact some more knowledgeable members on our standards and see what their opinions are on this.

 

[KingTempest]

EE is a method of destruction that ties to destroying your body. You're trying to treat it like a form of concept deletion or some shit when it's just "destroy till nothing's left"

 

[Crabwhale]

Who's them? The randoms that said "OH NOOO HE'S DISINTEGRATING". You take their word over the people who were literally being disintegrated?

Brook says it. He's fought Moria before, knows what he's about, knows how zombies work. The same randoms you're whining about also provide most of the "vanish" shit by commenting. What even is this point.

You do see the posterboy on the EE page right? Where the victim is destroyed so far that they're turned to particles then deleted?

I'm not gonna drag an entire other verse in this but Hakai's victims literally get pissed out of existence. The particles linger for a time then are gone. For the Straw Hats you don't even get to see them properly disappear dude. And also Hakai has the added benefit of literally being said to erase souls.

 

[KingTempest]

Brook says it. He's fought Moria before, knows what he's about, knows how zombies work. The same randoms you're whining about also provide most of the "vanish" shit by commenting. What even is this point.

Yeah and he said they don't exist and you said no.

I'm not gonna drag an entire other verse in this but Hakai's victims literally get pissed out of existence. The particles linger for a time then are gone. For the Straw Hats you don't even get to see them properly disappear dude. And also Hakai has the added benefit of literally being said to erase souls.

So this is EE right?