• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Our rules on Acausality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Monarch Laciel said:
But we already have both Time Paradox Immunity covering the "unnaffected by changes to the past" and Resistance to Causality Manipulation covers to "unnaffected by attacks reliant on cause and effect"

So why do we need to lump them both into acausality?
Click to expand...
Thank you. That was the main point I was trying to explain of why you shouldn't mix 2 different definitions together & add both superpowers to the profiles instead.

For the profiles: Just add both High-level Acausality (whoever is only qualified for this) or Acausality (whoever is only qualified for this) and Time Paradox Immunity not types of Acausality

I have a list of what should be considered as High-level Casuality Manipulation and just Casuality Manipulation.
 
Well, at least we agree that the two powers shouldn't be lumped together.

But I don't think that acausality should be a power listed at all, because with TPI and Causality resistance, acausality seems redundant.

On your other bit - If I am to guess at your definitions here, High-level acausality is the "cannot be affected by any cause", while TPI is exactly what it is now

But in that case, what is your basic Acausality? What does it do that is separate from resistance to causality manipulation?
 
So, what do the rest of you think about Monarch Laciel's suggestions?
 
Personally everything goes to me as long as the case is settled and this is understandable to all
 
Okay then, but again, you have to make it clear within the profiles what degree of acausality that the characters possess.
 
TPI is a subpart of the Acausality because it is not affected by causality but there are several degrees of acausality but it is essentially the same thing
 
I was just confused as the new definition seemed quite the same to me.

EDIT: hold up, i didn't notice anything about different degrees of acausality.

EDIT 2: oh time paradox immunity will be removed apparently
 
Monarch Laciel said:
Well, at least we agree that the two powers shouldn't be lumped together.

But I don't think that acausality should be a power listed at all, because with TPI and Causality resistance, acausality seems redundant.

On your other bit - If I am to guess at your definitions here, High-level acausality is the "cannot be affected by any cause", while TPI is exactly what it is now

But in that case, what is your basic Acausality? What does it do that is separate from resistance to causality manipulation?
Click to expand...
Hold on, I'm halfway done.

Reminder: I have limited time to reply since I'm currently in school.
 
DodoNova2 said:
TPI is a subpart of the Acausality because it is not affected by causality but there are several degrees of acausality but it is essentially the same thing
Click to expand...
They are not the same thing & they should be separate superpowers. The reason why they are considered that b/c: Definition of TPI + Definition of Acausality = New definition of.Acausality? That makes no sense.
 
But wait, if one takes the notion of "acausality" to its extreme ends, wouldn't it mean that said acausal being is immune to change (which is causality in its essence) in the first place? And if that's the case, then barely any character out there in fiction would fit the label of "acausality". Not merely due to them punching each other, but also merely interacting with others in a cause-effect type of way (person A does/says x whereupon person B does/says y).

So I agree that concerning fiction, we need to be clear what we mean by acausality, especially in a way that prevents NLF shenanigans.
 
We don't use that definition and yes, of course we're going to be clear about that, that's been thoroughly discussed.
 
Promestein said:
We don't use that definition and yes, of course we're going to be clear about that, that's been thoroughly discussed.
Click to expand...
"Acausality is the ability to be unaffected by attacks reliant on cause and effect or changes to the past. For example, being killed or having one's history changed a significant amount of time in the past will not affect an Acausal character in the present or future. However, these characters are not immortal and are often vulnerable to attacks and thus being killed in the present."

1. The bolded text only relates to TPI not Acausality.

2. You're throwing in a sub-power of Paradox Manipulation under Acausality? What the? Really?

3. Removing TPI for no reason would be considered as a waste of time imo.

@Jakob That's why I suggested High-level Acausality & just Acausality and TPI still being a separate superpower which will be less complicated if you give this idea a chance.
 
I think at this point we should pay heed to the fact that Reppu's suggestion has the support of the majority of those involved in this thread, since otherwise this discussion is endlessly looping (Including a good number of admins and Azzy did not agree with that extreme definition of Acausality either).

Support:

Reppuzan's Definition: Azathoth, Antvasima*, Reppuzan, DragonMasterxyz, Matthew Schroeder, Darkanine, Promestein, The Everlasting, Celestial Pegasus, Kaltias, FateAlbane, ThisIsMySwagPack, Gargoyle One, ALRF, Jakob C. Brown (I think)

Da Fritzi/Monarch Definition: Antvasima*, DaFritzi, Monarch, MagiRobloxG, Hat Mchat (I think)

  • Uncertain on him, so listed his name on both sides for the moment, as he originally defended the Monarch position, but after the discussion proceeded, said he rested his case.
    • Those not listed either didn't defend a particular position or are neutral. This includes also those who originally defended a position or another but later said that they're ok with what happens to be decided, whatever it is.
 
Also apologies if I forgot anyone or anyone was actually agreeing with either side and I didn't notice. It's because the thread has been going for quite a while now.
 
    • Those not listed either didn't defend a particular position or are neutral. This includes also those who originally defended a position or another but later said that they're ok with what happens to be decided, whatever it is.
I think I am the only neutral here lol .... Seriously, I lean in favor of the majority for the good of all the world and Reppu's Definition is simple
 
FateAlbane wrote
    • Those not listed either didn't defend a particular position or are neutral. This includes also those who originally defended a position or another but later said that they're ok with what happens to be decided, whatever it is.
I think I am the only neutral here lol .... Seriously, I lean in favor of the majority for the good of all the world and Reppu's definition is simple
 
Wouldn't it be easier to just keep the standard one which is used and is understandable, and for the odd and few characters that happens to be above the concept of change itself, list true acasuality in their abilities?
 
FateAlbane said:
I think at this point we should pay heed to the fact that Reppu's suggestion has the support of the majority of those involved in this thread, since otherwise this discussion is endlessly looping (Including a good number of admins and Azzy did not agree with that extreme definition of Acausality either).

Support:

Reppuzan's Definition: Azathoth, Antvasima*, Reppuzan, DragonMasterxyz, Matthew Schroeder, Darkanine, Promestein, The Everlasting, Celestial Pegasus, Kaltias, FateAlbane, ThisIsMySwagPack, Gargoyle One, ALRF, Jakob C. Brown (I think)

Da Fritzi/Monarch Definition: Antvasima*, DaFritzi, Monarch, MagiRobloxG, Hat Mchat (I think)
Click to expand...
I only agreed on Acausality being separated of 2 levels (High-level Acausality and just Acausality), not multiple types. Having multiple types would be too complicated while combined 2 superpowers into one and removing TPI altogether would be a bad idea and a waste of time IMO.
 
@Magi RobloxG My bad, I thought you were generally agreeing with DaFritzi and Monarch's suggestion overall, in regards to this point.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
The support for Repp's definition is almost unanimous.
Click to expand...
Peobably b/c you guys didn't hear what I gotta say about this but instead randomly jump into conclusions like that is gonna automatically solve everything.
 
Most people are agreeing with Repp's definition though, as you can clearly see in Fate's comment though.

But it annoys me that most of them just want simplicity over accuracy, when there are more accurate ways to say someone can survive time paradoxes than defining them as acausal
 
@Magi Claiming "no one heard" what you said and "randomly jumped to conclusions" isn't a proper argument (it even sounds somewhat agressive, as a matter of fact). People are entitled to their own opinions on any matter, and when two parts in a debate do not come to terms no matter what, overall approval of an idea or another by staff and users should be taken as the deciding factor, lest no end to the discussion is ever reached.

...This is not me saying x or y in regards to the discussion itself.

Just saying that this particular reply of yours was uncalled for.
 
BTW my position here is not that we should give acausality its logical extreme, but remove acausality altogether and make do with TPI and resistance to causality manipulation
 
Well, I technically think that Monarch Laciel has a point, but as long as Reppuzan's definition is expanded, and clarified in terms of that there are different degrees of the ability, I suppose that it might be alright.
 
FateAlbane said:
@Magi Claiming "no one heard" what you said and "randomly jumped to conclusions" isn't a proper argument (it even sounds somewhat agressive, as a matter of fact). People are entitled to their own opinions on any matter, and when two parts in a debate do not come to terms no matter what, overall approval of an idea or another by staff and users should be taken as the deciding factor, lest no end to the discussion is ever reached.
...This is not me saying x or y in regards to the discussion itself.

Just saying that this particular reply of yours was uncalled for.
Click to expand...
Sorry, just pointing it out.
 
Ok, here we go and it took quite a while to gather this info.

High-level Causality Manipulation: Almightly Law Manipulation, Paradox Manipulation, Omni-/High-level Reality Warping, Omni-/High-level Fate Manipulation, Metaphysical/Metaphysics Manipulation, Omni-Physics Manipulation, Quantum Probability Manipulation, High-level Variable Manipulation, Transduality, High-level Logic Manipulation, High-level Event Manipulation, Pataphysics Manipulation, High-level Concept Manipulation, Dual Warping, Principle Manipulation, Axiom Manipulation, Origin Manipulation

Causality Manipulation: Mathematics Manipulation, Science Manipulation, Variable Manipulation, Probability Manipulation, Reality Warping, Physics Manipulation, Law Manipulation, Logic Manipulation, Event Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, Supernatural Manipulation, Uncertainty Manipulation, Cognition Manipulation, Concept Manipulation, Virtual Reality Warping, Boundary Manipulation, Plot Manipulation, Superstition Manipulation, System Manipulation, Philosophy Manipulation, Pseudoscience Manipulation


Reminder: Yes, I already checked that all of these superpowers relate to Causality Manipulation.

[Insert a better explanation here]

For High-level Acausality, there are 2 options we can choose for this one (Choose either option 1 or option 2):

1. This will be restricted only to all characters 1-A & above that has shown this resistance while everyone else who are below 1-A will not have this level of resistance and there are no exceptions to this.

2. This will only be available for characters who are 1-A & above that has shown this resistance while everyone else below 1-A will not have this resistance at all unless there are explicit evidence of which they should have this level of resistance.

For regular Acausality, this would usually be everyone else below 1-A.

For Time Paradox Immunity, place it as a sub-power of Paradox Manipulation, not Acausality. Also no, mixing 2 different definitions =/= Acausality, do not do that. It causes random contradictions, complications, and confusions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

small question about acausality type 4
Replies
3
Views
578
AlipheeseXIV
AlipheeseXIV
Elyartaker
Acausality & Time Paradox Immunity
Replies
39
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Bsk_lyree
Add acausality type 4 for rover (wuthering waves)
Replies
16
Views
857
Furina003
Furina003
  • Locked
One-Punch Man: Tiering and Acausality Revision (Saitama/Empty Void) - Official 2025 Canon
Replies
6
Views
2K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Voidnether
Goku Black's Acausality (Type 1) Issue
Replies
23
Views
3K
Apex_Predator_GX
Apex_Predator_GX
Back
Top