Regarding High Godly Regenerationn

[The_Everlasting]

High-Godly: Able to regenerate from the simultaneous erasure of oneself and the contents of their own respective dimensional level (eg. the multiverse).

How's that?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I agree with the proposed definition change.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

High-Godly: Able to regenerate from the simultaneous erasure of oneself and the contents of their own respective dimensional level (eg. the multiverse).

How's that?

I'm indifferent. I'd think it still sounded a little confusing if it wasn't me reading it.

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe something like this, as a rough draft:

High-Godly: Able to regenerate even if your existence is erased and the level of reality that you occupy is destroyed. This is relative to the dimensional level of a character. For example, a 3-D character is not required to regenerate from an 11-D scale, as its existence does not reach that high in the first place.

 

[The_Everlasting]

@Cal

I don't think it's that hard to understand what I put.

Regenerating from the simultaneous erasure of yourself and everything in the dimensional level you exist in, such as the multiverse.

 

[Golden_Void]

Seems fine, the only thing we needed to clarify was "the reality you are within"

 

[PaChi2]

High-Godly: Able to regenerate from the simultaneous erasure of oneself and the contents of their own respective dimensional level (eg. the multiverse).

How's that?

I agree with that wording.

 

[PaChi2]

We only needed to clarify what "reality" meant in the old deffinition.

Everlasting's wording takes care of the issue.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'll give it my own shot

"High-Godly: Able to regenerate from your deletion, as well as the reality you're in respective to your dimensional level. For example, a 2-B character would need to regenerate from an apparent 4-D spatiotemporal erasure of themselves and their current reality."

Edit: ninja'd

 

[The_Everlasting]

@Cal

That one sounds too... jumbled, I feel.

Also, "4-D spatiotemporal" is redundant asf, lol.

 

[Golden_Void]

Nvm things just got overcomplicated.

Able to regenerate from having their existence completely erased, as well as the dimesion(s) they are confined by being completely destroyed or erased.

Ex. A 4-D high godly is infinitely weaker than the one above it. Yet a 4-D being cant regenerate on a 5-D level as it transcends their existence.

 

[The_Everlasting]

@UMR

If that's the specific wording (Not sure it is), then I have an issue with it.

Namely, very rarely do characters actually destroy the dimension. Yes, they can erase, say, the multiverse, but not the actual 4th dimension.

 

[Antvasima]

The problem is that a 3-D character simply occupies a single universe. If it regenerates from the complete destruction of that and itself, that should be sufficient to qualify for High-Godly. Mentioning the multiverse seems misleading and prone to cause misunderstandings.

I would much prefer if we use my version as a template to be gradually improved upon.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Alright, another shot (sad I can't think of a Hamilton reference ;_:

"High-Godly: Able to regenerate from the erasure of oneself and the spatiotemporal collapse of a reality equal to one's dimensional level"

 

[The_Everlasting]

It's just an example. My description specifically says "the contents of their own respective dimensional level", and gives the multiverse as an example of such a thing (As well as, let's be real, where all High-Godly's will get their regen from).

 

[Golden_Void]

@Ever

I used dimensions in regards to space and time.

 

[The_Everlasting]

@UMR

I see.

 

[PaChi2]

The problem is that a 3-D character simply occupies a single universe. If it regenerates from the complete destruction of that and itself, that should be sufficient to qualify for High-Godly. Mentioning the multiverse seems misleading and prone to cause misunderstandings.

I would much prefer if we use my version as a template to be gradually improved upon.

Keep in mind that said 3D guy must:

1) Not regenerate from a soul (Low godly)

2) Not regenerate in a different universe (must regen in the void it was his/her universse).

3) Not regenerate from any type of Immortality (i.e 8) (mid godly).

The 3D being would need to accomplish all this in order to be a candidate for High godly regen. Otherwise it'd just be Low/Mid godly depending on context.

 

[Antvasima]

High-Godly: Able to regenerate even if your existence is erased and the level of reality that you occupy is destroyed. This is relative to the dimensional level of a character. For example, a 3-D character is not required to regenerate from an 11-D scale, as its existence does not reach that high in the first place.

Again, this version is a full concise explanation of the concept. I would very much appreciate if we could simply focus on collaborating with improving the wording and the flow, rather than everybody posting different versions.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Kay

 

[Golden_Void]

Isn't the minimum 4-D, since three dimensional characters are also bound by the time dimension?

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

 

[Antvasima]

@Unite My Rice

The complete destruction of a universe is a 4-D event, yes. In a sense we are all somewhat 4-dimensional, but that is too complicated a discussion to fit into such a brief explanation. I am open for suggestions how to make my explanation better though.

 

[PaChi2]

I thought you guys agreed that 3D characters could get High godly. If you read my first comment, I said that it'd require a minimun of 4 dimensions.

I like Ant's wording too.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'm still unsure if this comes from a result of a 4th dimensional erasure, or the erasure of the 4th dimension. Yes, they sound similar, but massive difference.

 

[Golden_Void]

I would say destruction or erasure of the reality, looks good

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, a spatially 3-D character would have to regenerate from a spatio-temporally 4-D destruction of the universe as a minimum.

Now we have to figure out how to concisely incorporate that information into the explanation that I wrote.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

"Able to regenerate even if your existence is erased along with your respective dimensional level of reality."

That shortens Ant's thing and gets the point across.

 

[Golden_Void]

I mean if we have to explain how dimensions work on a Regenerationn description, we're better off referencing the dimension page, and updating it if need be.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

"Able to regenerate even if your existence is erased along with your respective dimensional level of reality."
That shortens Ant's thing and gets the point across.

I like this.

 

[Antvasima]

Cal's version seems good to me.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'm still unsure if this comes from a result of a 4th dimensional erasure, or the erasure of the 4th dimension. Yes, they sound similar, but massive difference.

Before I enter the one Matt & Ant are cool with, I gotta get this answered. Depending on the answer, I may have to add two words in.

 

[Antvasima]

Can you clarify your question?

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Coming back from the 4th dimensional erasure of your universe (w/o coming back through another one).

Coming back from the erasure of (everything in) your 4th dimension.

Are both High-Godly or just the latter? I think both are.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that both would qualify as High-Godly.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Kay, then. Small change, in that case. Very small.

"Able to regenerate even if your existence is erased along with the respective dimensional level of your residing reality."

 

[Antvasima]

This version seems to have a better text flow:

"Able to regenerate even if your existence is erased alongside the dimensional level of the reality you reside in."

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Take out "that" and it's perfect. And replace "along with" with "alongside"

Sorry...that's the English-professor-for-a-mother in me...

 

[Antvasima]

However, that version can still be misunderstood to mean that a spatially 3-D character has to recover from, for example, the 11-dimensional collapse of the multiverse that it resides in, which is not necessary.

 

[Antvasima]

I am afraid that it can still be misunderstood in the same regard.