- 15,130
- 6,915
No.
It says that they are aspect of its being, sooo.
Is the 2nd time I repeat this.
Stomp the feet on the ground and cry all you want. I don't care, is the truth.
-
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.
Is the 2nd time I repeat this.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,190
- 4,032
This is getting dumb, this CRT has overwhelming staff disagreement. it can be closed.
- 15,130
- 6,915
Dialga and Palkia ARE the multiverse tho...
- 15,130
- 6,915
It's accepted on the profiles after this CRT.
- 15,130
- 6,915
The CRT was made prior to the PLA release.
True Form is an unofficial name that was taken to describe the abstract selves.
Regardless, is accepted on the profiles, so change it with a CRT first.
True Form is an unofficial name that was taken to describe the abstract selves.
Regardless, is accepted on the profiles, so change it with a CRT first.
- 15,130
- 6,915
Basically yes.
- 167,692
- 76,282
Can any knowledgeable members here write single explanation posts for each side of the arguments in this thread please?
I agree with Sniper670 that a 2-A multiverse being an aspect of Arceus' being and the latter existing outside of time and space do not seem like sufficient justifications for Low 1-C on their own, but I am not a very good person to ask.
I agree with Sniper670 that a 2-A multiverse being an aspect of Arceus' being and the latter existing outside of time and space do not seem like sufficient justifications for Low 1-C on their own, but I am not a very good person to ask.
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
- Thread starter
- #216
Alright. I'm going to do this again
1. "Transcendence" is meaningless on its own and can mean many things. And in the context of Arceus dimension it is simply outside the multiverse
A. Knowledgeable character about the lore mentioned its outside
B. The character we're trying to impose qualitative superiority says his dimension is out
2. "The Multiverse is but a mere part of Arceus" is false. Arceus, the Pokémon is not even sustaining the multiverse with his existence. Yes, the concept of space and the concept of time are aspects, not the entire multiverse. And this wouldn't even prove low 1C. The reason this exists as proof of low 1C on the wiki is if the cosmology is an infinitesimal part of you. Evidence Arceus lacks as this is the justification for their claim and doesn't prove what they say
3. "A god who transcends everything" is being used as proof that Arceus dimension is qualitatively superior when those two are entirely disconnected. The Pokémon Arceus, yes he transcends everything, as the Supreme Ruler. Not in a qualitatively superior way going by all his appearances. And it certainly has nothing to do with his dimension
4. Hoopa's evidence is confusing and I'm not sure why it was on his profile
All in all, I see the evidence on his profile very weak, and if there's no better evidence to be brought here, just downgrade him to 2A
- 18,393
- 14,323
You can “highly” doubt but trust me, even Rimuru has much name fallacy, and yet he did not gain 5D.
Arcreus has the exact name, and yet this is the only evidence I see for him being 5D in the justification.
And about “beyond space-time”, Rimuru has it for like 5 statements right now, and we did not allow it, because it is vague. I don't see anything different in this case.
You are against changing it? Would be better, honestly. I am neutral on this and trying to help both sides to understand each other.
I don't see an issue with changing the justification.
- 9,982
- 10,821
Well, If I'll have to state my reason to agree with the OP ;-;
Transcend is vague for qualitative superiority justification, it can mean his dimension is outside of the multiverse(which it is) and on other take it can mean he is strongest and stands above all, there is not much to say here. I've read several stories and in all of them "transcend" has been used for god's and Demi gods several times, for the reason that they stands above every being but they don't have any feat remotely to even city lvl and has been shown to be struggling against characters who is just planetary at best. Dialga being aspect of arecus doesn't really mean much tbh.
Transcend is vague for qualitative superiority justification, it can mean his dimension is outside of the multiverse(which it is) and on other take it can mean he is strongest and stands above all, there is not much to say here. I've read several stories and in all of them "transcend" has been used for god's and Demi gods several times, for the reason that they stands above every being but they don't have any feat remotely to even city lvl and has been shown to be struggling against characters who is just planetary at best. Dialga being aspect of arecus doesn't really mean much tbh.
- 1,608
- 2,116
If the fact that Palkia and Dialga are the incarnations of space and time throught the Multiverse is disproven, than I will have to agree with the downgrade.
Statements of transcending space and time on their own are far from enough to justify a Tier 1 rating without further context. At absolute best if a bit of context is given it can give a "possibly", but even that in my opinion is a stretch given the situation.
After the new informations, I stay neutral leaning towards agreeing if no one can prove that there is more to the rating.
Statements of transcending space and time on their own are far from enough to justify a Tier 1 rating without further context. At absolute best if a bit of context is given it can give a "possibly", but even that in my opinion is a stretch given the situation.
After the new informations, I stay neutral leaning towards agreeing if no one can prove that there is more to the rating.
Jinsye
She/Her- 10,461
- 1,585
Basically what I'm getting here is:
If Dialga is "infinite time" and Palkia is "infinite space", and they are indeed aspects/parts of Arceus (which it seems so because it literally states that they are aspects of Arceus and aspect means part)
That should be Low 1-C on it's own, due to being qualitatively superior to infinite 4-D.
So the point is, are Dialga/Palkia actually time and space. Cause the profiles currently say they are.
If Dialga is "infinite time" and Palkia is "infinite space", and they are indeed aspects/parts of Arceus (which it seems so because it literally states that they are aspects of Arceus and aspect means part)
That should be Low 1-C on it's own, due to being qualitatively superior to infinite 4-D.
So the point is, are Dialga/Palkia actually time and space. Cause the profiles currently say they are.
- 167,692
- 76,282
@Executor_N0 @ProfessorKukui4Life @CloverDragon03 @Everything12 @Starter_Pack @GyroNutz @SamanPatou
What do you think about this?
- 4,638
- 1,617
Is it actually disproven? The whole point of this CRT was to make the justification better or downgrade Arceus which mind you, I am neutral.
- 4,638
- 1,617
Pokémon Called Gods
vsbattles.fandom.com
This blog was used because both Dialga and Palkia was considered govern over time and space.
Palkia and Dialga was pretty much say to help shape the multiverse as well.
- 7,142
- 4,657
My opinion? It's that a whole lot of generalisation and ignoring context is going on, as they try and break down the reason for Arceus being Low 1-C down into individual parts and saying that said individual parts don't make sense and don't qualify for Low 1-C, while ignoring that it is only through all these components and context adding together that we get the actual reason why a bunch of staff agreed to upgrade Arceus to Low 1-C in the previous thread when other series have failed fo get that agreement for supposedly 'similar' reasoning.
At the end of the day, fictional comsology and feats are a varied thing, and while we try to trim it down to if you have this statement or this feat then you meet the standards for this, we still have to look at the context of the evidence presented and make our judgements based on that if they meet our standards.
But yes, I still think that encompassing and transcending
the rest of space, time, and not space-time to an infinite degree meets the standards for Low 1-C... which is why I disagreed to Bayonetta being Low 1-C for 'supposedly' similar reasons, pretty sure God of Wars transcending is also similarly lacking in additional context Arceus has so that comparison is mute as well.
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
- Thread starter
- #229
Can I see scans please? To an infinite degree you say. Surprise me.
But yes, I still think that encompassing and transcending
I pointed out that there was a flaw in that thread. What flaw you ask?
Every single justification of low 1C on his profile right now, is using his avatar, who isn't low 1C and using his dimension, which isn't even qualitatively superior, and using Hoopa, which is questionable . And the one thing that is talking about the True Form is literally just omnipresence. Meanwhile that CRT to upgrade Arceus explicitly mentioned this
Essentially the justification better be rewritten because that's not low 1C, or otherwise a downgrade
- 167,692
- 76,282
Okay. Thank you for the evaluation help.My opinion? It's that a whole lot of generalisation and ignoring context is going on, as they try and break down the reason for Arceus being Low 1-C down into individual parts and saying that said individual parts don't make sense and don't qualify for Low 1-C, while ignoring that it is only through all these components and context adding together that we get the actual reason why a bunch of staff agreed to upgrade Arceus to Low 1-C in the previous thread when other series have failed fo get that agreement for supposedly 'similar' reasoning.
At the end of the day, fictional comsology and feats are a varied thing, and while we try to trim it down to if you have this statement or this feat then you meet the standards for this, we still have to look at the context of the evidence presented and make our judgements based on that if they meet our standards.
But yes, I still think that encompassing and transcending
- 10,064
- 5,291
I would like to request to be removed from being mentioned here. While I am a big fan of Pokémon, I have never really been able to fathom the higher tiered stuff on the wiki, so I cannot assure you that my opinion would even have any value here.
My apologies.
My apologies.
- 167,692
- 76,282
Okay. You should probably remove yourself from that section of our Knowledgeable Members List then, as I will not remember it otherwise.
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Knowledgeable_Members_List_(Verses)#P-
- 10,064
- 5,291
Oh, no. You misunderstand.
I still consider myself knowledgeable on Pokémon stuff, and I would be more than happy to help with that stuff. It's just the god tier stuff is way above my mental paygrade, so I would like to be omitted just from that stuff.
I still consider myself knowledgeable on Pokémon stuff, and I would be more than happy to help with that stuff. It's just the god tier stuff is way above my mental paygrade, so I would like to be omitted just from that stuff.
- 5,779
- 7,379
I tend towards agreeing with Sniper. This doesn't seem to justify Low 1-C. Being outside a multiverse doesn't grant a higher tier (PR Beyonder for example), "Transcends" also =/= infinitely superior on a higher level (DB Other World for example).
- 18,393
- 14,323
Add this note in the knowledgeable member list between bracket. Will make stuff easier
- 10,064
- 5,291
Good suggestion. Thanks.
- 18,393
- 14,323
- 13,138
- 20,846
All you're really saying is "well this actually doesn't prove anything" without elaborating why
