Removal of God of War's "Type 1 Concept Manipulation"

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx And it's not a challenging task to put 2 and 2 together on why they disagree in the first place when someone's made a refute prior to their votes.

Can you quote where Planck said that Gaia's the only argument for conceptual? Because Gaia's not the only being who's formless in their true state when Surtr exists and he's blatantly a primordial given he's been there before the creation of everything.

 

[Deagonx]

Do you have an issue with my reasoning for Chaos? How I showcased the Form of a soul shapes a being's material self and nature? How life, magic and the soul are synonymous i.e. the entire first half of the explanation page for the ability you're removing? How Sutr says the Primordial forces are ultimately the same? I would assume not, given how 90% of your posts are about Gaia.

Your reasoning for Gaia is the basis for saying Chaos is conceptual, which is the basis for saying life -- and therefore magic and souls -- are conceptual. All of this is based on the Gaia scan, which is why I focused on it. Perhaps an argument could be made to break one of the chain links between Gaia and souls, but since the basis for this being conceptual ultimately derives from the Gaia scan, it makes sense to just focus on that.

How I showcased the Form of a soul shapes a being's material self and nature
How Surtur says the Primordial forces are ultimately the same?

I will infer that these are being presented as your justification for thinking of things as conceptual. If so:

The Form is treated as such because it shapes the physical form of a being, that is changes in said soul are reflected in their bodies. This is showcased with Garm, in which his initial appearance visibly changes after Atreus seals Fenrir's soul in him, and actually shifts to resemble the late wolf, unique furpatches and all.

The claim here is that because Garm's physical appearance changes when Fenrir's soul is sealed him, that the "Form" part of a soul must inform physical shape. This is a little presumptive, but sure, I'll buy it. Regardless, the fact that the Soul/Form informs one's physical shape does not make it conceptual. I don't know why you believe that would make it conceptual and you have not provided an argument for that.

It's that all primordial forces are the same in nature across pantheons, and from what we know, said forces are magic.

No scans have been provided that speak on this at all, but in any case, the fact that magic is the same across pantheons is not evidence that it is conceptual. I can't even imagine an argument for that being the case, and you haven't provided one.

 

[Deagonx]

Can you quote where Planck said that Gaia's the only argument for conceptual? Because Gaia's not the only being who's formless in their true state when Surtr exists and he's blatantly a primordial given he's been there before the creation of everything.

I said the Gaia scan was the only argument. I am not sure why you are bringing up Surtr being formless. Why would being formless make him conceptual? What is your reasoning?

 

[Antvasima]

Ant, this is a far more egregious case than I believe you realize. You understand that as it is, interacting with any human's soul constitutes "Type 1 Concept Manip" and that the sole basis for believing anything in this verse is conceptual (let alone "Type 1") is a single scan describing a deity as "formless" and "lacking in substance" and that this scan wasn't even in the existing justification, which as of making this thread, was just a link to concept art?

This is one of the worst justifications for Type 1 CM I've ever seen, and it is sure to be removed. Alternatively we'll just have to do a revision on our CM page to better clarify what kind of evidence is needed for something like that, so that these sorts of errors aren't made in the future.

Okay. If that is correct, I switch my vote then. I thought that CM was added due to affecting primordial concepts.

 

[Planck69]

Okay. If that is correct, I switch my vote then, but I thought that CM was added due to affecting Gaia and other primordial concepts.

No. It was added collectively due to magic's nature being that way. The Primordials having CM Type 1 predates the collective addition by a long time.

 

[Antvasima]

No. It was added collectively due to magic's nature being that way. The Primordials having CM Type 1 predates the collective addition by a long time.

Please elaborate.

 

[Planck69]

Please elaborate.

In short magic, life and the soul are synonymous. Not only is magic independent of reality given it predates it completely, it also influences the entirety of the pantheon it originates from and is of the same nature as Chaos, the Primordial of Life and thus magic as well.

Primordial forces are the same across pantheons, (something Sutr says in Ragnarok when he senses the fire of the Blades of Chaos) and would share a similar nature as the Primordials of Greece.

The Primordials of Greece themselves, predate time and space, embody a specific part of the universe but are non-physical in their truest state, independent of their material domain but Influencing it all the sMe.

My comment has the scans as well as the link to the re-clarification thread if you want to be sure.

 

[Deagonx]

Please elaborate.

For the majority of the discussion, the basis was that Gaia (one of the Primordials) had a scan allegedly showing she was conceptual, and that Chaos (goddess of Life) is a Primordial, and since Life/Magic/Souls are fungible, all of those things must be conceptual too. Essentially Gaia=Chaos=Life=Magic=Souls, based on that single scan, which doesn't show Gaia as being conceptual at all. It just calls her formless, a spirit, and that Earth is her physical form/she is the Earth. Those qualities wouldn't make her conceptual.

Now, Planck has added two new arguments. The first is that "primordial forces have the same nature across multiple pantheons." No scan for this, but it wouldn't make them conceptual anyway. The second is that souls are the basis for one's physical shape, your physical form can change based on changes to your soul. This also wouldn't make souls conceptual.

If there is reasoning beyond that, it is unclear to me what it is or what the evidence behind it actually is.

The Primordials of Greece themselves, predate time and space, embody a specific part of the universe but are non-physical in their truest state, independent of their material domain but Influencing it all the same.

This claim comes from the Gaia scan I referenced above. It is an incredibly generous interpretation, since nothing in that scans talks about Gaia having, nor influencing, a "domain." Just that she's a spirit and her physical form is the Earth.

 

[Planck69]

Now, Planck has added two new arguments. The first is that "primordial forces have the same nature across multiple pantheons." No scan for this, but it wouldn't make them conceptual anyway. The second is that souls are the basis for one's physical shape, your physical form can change based on changes to your soul. This also wouldn't make souls conceptual.

It's the first scan in the section Magic as a Constant, on the Explanation page. The one that links to Surtr talking about the Primordial Fire of the Blades. This is not a new scan.

The second part is also on the Explanation page, referring to Garm being altered. None of these are new, you simply need to be familiar with what you're removing.

 

[Deagonx]

It's the first scan in the section Magic as a Constant, on the Explanation page. The one that links to Surtr talking about the Primordial Fire of the Blades. This is not a new scan.

Surtr says there's Primordial fire in Kratos' blades, Kratos says it isn't from these lands (they are from Greece) and Surtr says "it shouldn't matter."

Is there more to this or is that the sole basis for claiming Surtr "said that the nature of Primordial forces is the same across pantheons?"

Also, why would an energy force being the same across pantheons make it conceptual? I don't know what the argument is.

 

[Planck69]

Surtr says there's Primordial fire in Kratos' blades, Kratos says it isn't from these lands (they are from Greece) and Surtr says "it shouldn't matter."

Is there more to this or is that the sole basis for claiming Surtr "said that the nature of Primordial forces is the same across pantheons?"

Also, why would an energy force being the same across pantheons make it conceptual? I don't know what the argument is.

The fact that the similar nature is proven by allowing him to ignite Sinmara's heart, later at the Spark of the World. "Shouldn't matter" refers to the fact that the use of it in the place of the Primordial Fire within his heart (the one with Sinmara) would be ultimately the same, and thus the same as the Primordial magic within the Spark.



Here on the Explanation page are the same new arguments that you purport I brought up here. I respect you enough to go out of my way to explain every little thing. Please respect me enough to at least read the page you disagree with.

And once again, you take the argument piece meal for some reason. The similar nature ties into my main argument for Chaos yet you seem to want every single part of the argument to go "Type 1 concept". We don't do that here, it's not just pedantic, it's a misunderstanding of how evidence works.

 

[Deagonx]

Once again, even if we do make the broad claim that they have a similar nature because both can activate Surtr, it is still unclear how or why that'd make them conceptual or contribute to that evaluation.

I am trying to understanding why you think Chaos, and thus Life/Magic, is a conceptual force other than "Chaos is the same kind of being as Gaia who was called formless, and a spirit who's physical form is the Earth itself." More importantly, I want other staff members to be able to identify what your reasoning is so they can thoughtfully decide whether they agree with it or not.

Instead, so often, you provide your conclusions or your evidence, but never an argument or explanation. Sometimes it's not necessary when the evidence is incredibly straightforward, but that is not the case here. I've seen the Gaia scan (evidence), and you claim Gaia has a domain that she influences (conclusion). What I do not know, and what I'd truly like to know, is how you reached the conclusion from that scan (or any other scan) that Gaia has a "domain that she influences" or how/why the descriptions in the scan suggest that Gaia (and by extension, Chaos) are conceptual (the argument).

 

[Antvasima]

I think that the key issue here seems to be whether or not at least some of the primordial gods qualify as being truly conceptual or not, as this would scale to the characters that can affect them.

 

[Planck69]

I think that the key issue here seems to be whether or not at least some of the primordial gods qualify as being truly conceptual or not, as this would scale to the characters that can affect them.

I mean, the main argument is tied to the fundamental power everyone in the setting uses, which stems from Chaos/Life.

It can be debated whether or not it's conceptual but scaling isn't really in doubt.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, that argument does not seem good enough in my view, but if you conclusively prove that other gods can, for example, affect a legitimate conceptual/abstract embodiment of time, that would probably work much better.

 

[DarkGrath]

None of those descriptions speak to Gaia being a concept. If you have some idea of how they would, please feel free to explain it. If not, I'll focus my energy on those who do.

Is there a reason you have constantly avoided requests for clarification on your rational?

I'll wait for the vote. Call it smoke and mirrors and avoidance. I call it actually knowing my verse from beyond a Wikipedia page.

None of these are new, you simply need to be familiar with what you're removing.

I'm going to keep this brief, because I believe most people here already saw my concerns on the previous GoW thread about this.

Stop with the tone. You can only politely phrase and reframe accusatory remarks as mere observations and claims so far before it is obvious to everyone else viewing the situation from the outside that the intent is not actually to observe and report things impartially but to simply belittle the other person without being criticised for it. I don't care to what extent one of you thinks the other person is warranting the tone because they're the unreasonable one. I had enough reservations about these kinds of consistent, inconspicuously demeaning remarks in the previous thread, and I see no evidence that it has improved.

I'll evaluate the thread in a few hours. I don't want to come back here and see that things have gotten worse. Just keep your thoughts about the intelligence or ignorance or integrity of the other person aside when you debate, speak on the evidence and not on the person providing the evidence, and this thread will go a lot smoother.

 

[Deagonx]

I think that the key issue here seems to be whether or not at least some of the primordial gods qualify as being truly conceptual or not, as this would scale to the characters that can affect them.

Agreed. So far, main piece of evidence appears to be these two statements about Gaia from the scan:

... Gaia's spirit stirred. Formless, of the earth, the earth, and yet lacking in substance...
... For a Titan, time was meaningless... Worse, time had ceased to have meaning because her physical form had been ripped away, leaving behind only inchoate sprit.

Planck has argued that this shows that she acts as a concept:

The point here is that she in her incorporeal state behaves exactly as a concept would based on the earth. She is the earth as a whole (the object) and influences its existence in a non-physical aspect due to being "formless", "yet lacking in substance", "an inchoate spirit" (the concept), that's independent of reality (she predates time and space entirely).

However, I do not know how her being "formless" "lacking in substance" or "an inchoate (means not fully developed) spirit" who's physical form is the Earth would make Gaia a governing concept nor Earth a "token" of that concept. I'd like for Planck to clarify the rationale behind it.

 

[Planck69]

Well, that argument does not seem good enough in my view, but if you conclusively prove that other gods can, for example, affect a legitimate conceptual/abstract embodiment of time, that would probably work much better.

Are you asking for general in-universe feats of affecting universal abstracts or just the Primordials? The former happens with Zeus sealing the Evils, literal negative forces like Greed, Fear, Rage etc. which even affected the Primordials. The latter more or less ties back into whether or not the Primordials are abstract.

Helios repels Morpheus, who embodies and is Dreams for instance and Nyx who embodies Night every day. Unless you mean something else?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am more interested in if Zeus can, for example, affect Chronos, and Chronos is an abstract concept within this story.

 

[Antvasima]

Are you asking for general in-universe feats of affecting universal abstracts or just the Primordials? The former happens with Zeus sealing the Evils, literal negative forces like Greed, Fear, Rage etc. which even affected the Primordials. The latter more or less ties back into whether or not the Primordials are abstract.

Helios repels Morpheus, who embodies and is Dreams for instance and Nyx who embodies Night every day. Unless you mean something else?

Yes, that is much better evidence to use, in case any of your examples are abstract embodiments.

 

[Deagonx]

The former happens with Zeus sealing the Evils, literal negative forces like Greed, Fear, Rage etc. which even affected the Primordials. The latter more or less ties back into whether or not the Primordials are abstract.

Helios repels Morpheus, who embodies Dreams for instance and Nyx who embodies Night every day. Unless you mean something else?

Wouldn't Greed/Fear/Rage simply be emotional forces of magic? What is the evidence that they are an abstract concept rather than a merely a magical entity? They could be both of course, but what is the evidence for them being an abstract concept?

It feels like we are hastily assuming that magical beings associated with a certain thing must therefore also be the abstract concept of the thing itself.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Wouldn't Greed/Fear/Rage simply be emotional forces of magic? What is the evidence that they are an abstract concept rather than a merely a magical entity? They could be both of course, but what is the evidence for them being an abstract concept?

It feels like we are hastily assuming that magical beings associated with a certain thing must therefore also be the abstract concept of the thing itself.

There's a blog explaining the nature of them, there's also a summary about it in the magic page.

 

[Planck69]

Wouldn't Greed/Fear/Rage simply be emotional forces of magic? What is the evidence that they are an abstract concept rather than a merely a magical entity? They could be both of course, but what is the evidence for them being an abstract concept?

It feels like we are hastily assuming that magical beings associated with a certain thing must therefore also be the abstract concept of the thing itself.

Because they're the evils themselves rather than some magical embodiment. Greed isn't some weird black thing that represents it, but Greed itself. The same goes for the rest.

You yourself agree that evil in itself is a concept in one of the very first sentence of this thread so I dunno the issue now.

Their explanation is also on the magic page to peruse.

 

[Deagonx]

Because they're the evils themselves rather than some magical embodiment. Greed isn't some weird black thing that represents it, but Greed itself. The same goes for the rest.

That's the claim, sure, I am asking what the evidence for it is.

I also just don't see how this could be the case. Zeus locks these things (Fear, Greed, Pride, etc) in a metal box that he creates (Pandora's Box). If these were literally the abstract concepts of these things, how would anyone in the world still be experiencing any of them if the concepts were sealed away? They were directly said to be "missing from the world"

Also, those entities were said to have been created as a result of the war between Zeus and the Titans. So are we to understand that none of these concepts existed before the war? So no one ever felt fear, rage, etc until the war between Zeus and the Titans?

You yourself agree that evil in itself is a concept in one of the very first sentence of this thread so I dunno the issue now.

Everything has a concept of itself, but an "entity of pure fear" or something similar is not a concept just because there is a "concept of fear." We wouldn't assume it was anything more than a magical entity. Also, these "evils" are primarily just a list of the "deadly sins" and they're treated like an energy force rather than concepts in the series.

 

[Planck69]

That's the claim, sure, I am asking what the evidence for it is.

I also just don't see how this could be the case. Zeus locks these things (Fear, Greed, Pride, etc) in a metal box that he creates (Pandora's Box). If these were literally the abstract concepts of these things, how would anyone in the world still be experiencing any of them if the concepts were sealed away?


Everything has a concept of itself, but an "entity of pure fear" or something similar is not a concept just because there is a "concept of fear." We wouldn't assume it was anything more than a magical entity. Also, these "evils" are primarily just a list of the "deadly sins" and they're treated like an energy force rather than concepts in the series.

The box is specifically forged of magical metal shaped by a greater power than the gods themselves, by Hephaestus not Zeus. And energy force? The novel itself has them infect them on the level of both their souls, "deeper than that" and affect the domains that the gods embody, so this is very reductive. Athena, who embodies wisdom was left muddleheaded and distracted, Iris' rainbows had a black band added to them, and so on.

The fact that even something as abstract as wisdom can be affected aside, these things are not ever called "entities of evil" every mention of them, from God of War III to Ragnarok to the Valhalla entry has them as just the evils straight up. Greed is greed, Fear is fear, Hate is hate etc.

 

[Antvasima]

Would a good compromise solution here be to simply update the justifications for conceptual manipulation for this verse so it focuses on feats of affecting clearly conceptual forces instead?

 

[Deagonx]

The box is specifically forged of magical metal shaped by a greater power than the gods themselves, by Hephaestus not Zeus. And energy force? The novel itself has them infect them on the level of both their souls, "deeper than that" and affect the domains that the gods embody, so this is very reductive.

The fact that these things are not ever called "entities of evil" every mention of them, from God of War III to Ragnarok to the Valhalla entry has them as just the evils straight up.

Okay, but this isn't addressing the problem here. These evils were:

A) Created as a result of the war between the titans and Zeus
B) Locked in this box and "missing from the world"

So are we to understand that prior to the war, no one ever felt fear or rage, since that war created the very concept of the things themselves? How did people experience those things after the war if the concepts were locked away and missing from the world?

Would a good compromise solution here be to simply update the justifications for conceptual manipulation for this verse so it focuses on feats of affecting clearly conceptual forces instead?

At an absolute minimum the justifications need to be updated to include the scans and arguments that the supporters are actually using, since currently the Concept Manipulation justification only has a single scan of concept art in it. But I don't think there's a good reason to think any of these things are conceptual.

 

[Planck69]

Would a good compromise solution here be to simply update the justifications for conceptual manipulation for this verse so it focuses on feats of affecting clearly conceptual forces instead?

I do not see what compromise solution is needed. There doesn't seem to be a refute to Chaos's nature as well as the nature of magic so at most I can see is having just magic be Type 1 Conceptual Manipulation rather than the souls being Type 1 concepts, even if they're made of magic.


But I am not really budging on my stance as it stands. Perhaps after heftier staff input but not before then.

 

[Deagonx]

There doesn't seem to be a refute to Chaos's nature as well as the nature of magic so at most I can see is having just magic be Type 1 Conceptual Manipulation rather than the souls being Type 1 concepts, even if they're made of magic.

The refute is that being "formless" or "lacking in substance" or "spirits" doesn't make Primordials concepts, so Chaos is not a conceptual goddess which leaves us with no basis for believing magic is conceptual nor that everyone who uses it should have Type 1 Concept Manip.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Got permission from planck to comment, anyway I'm gonna try to explain why it's conceptal and then eat and sleep.

Souls​

Souls are the metaphysical nature and form of beings, shaping the physical objects they possess after them. As we know, Souls are made up of a beings form, but as to what this "form" encompasses has been poorly explained by our pages, fortunately, the Games have shown context to what this form actually is.

Souls are the metaphysical nature and form of beings.

We see this instance as it's most obvious when Kratos and Atrues battle the immortal wolf Garm, whom doesn't possess the nature of dying due to lacking a soul.

The father-son duo try to overcome this by inputting a soul within Garm, Which causes a change in his nature to be replaced by Fenrir's.

This is the most obvious one, But their are other instances, Such as a God's nature battling what the mind perceived as it's nature as said by Mimir and Freya, But those would take a lengthy time to explain their nuance.

The conclusion here is pretty obvious, Souls are the metaphysical form and nature of a being, And when put into a body they override it's nature with its own.

Beings mold themselves after their soul.

This one is the most obvious one, As the games hammers this pretty clearly.

As mentioned before hand, Having Fenrir's soul put in Garm caused Garm to have Fenrir's eye color and fur.

When a Giant's soul was put in a soulless snake (I'm sorry you're gonna have to watch a bit of beginning), It caused the snake to grow as a Giant and even become one on a physical level, As the snake here is Jomungander, who is noted to be a Giant.

Even the Greek saga had it has a thing, Showcasing this as being a inherent property of Souls.

Souls predate time and space.

To go over this, Magic, a conceptal force on its own, something synonymous with the soul, is older than the entirety of the Nine Realms and existed in the Ginnungagap as a primordial essence

Ancients, a race of primordial stone who existed as a part of Ymir, have Souls.

The Light of Alfheim is a power that existed before the creation of the Nine Realms (Even before Odin) and has gathered souls towards it since the beginning of creation.

The conclusion here is simple, Souls predate space and time and are thus independent as far as their nature goes.

Primordials And Magic​

How does a God's domain work?

A God's relationship with their domain is metaphysical in essence, ruling over its nature across space and time and gaining magical powers to influence it as a result.

They also have this nature as an aspect of their soul (form in particular) and it is the determining factor between a god and demigod Soul's.

This is pretty obviously conceptal, but how does this relate to the Primordials?

Primordials are their domains and more.

Before we start, I should mention that the Primordials are treated as Gods in the series, so I'll be assuming a God's domain is similar to a Primordial's (the Gods inherited theirs from the Primordials so they'll be similar regardless). Which is why the above existed in the first place.

The Primordials are noted to be their domains and to be synonymous with them, As shown by how Gaia is said to be the formless sprit of the earth, And how all the Primordials are synonymous with theirs.

But this isn't all, As all things relating to their domains are created by them, even before time,

As Shown by how Chaos's Primordial flame birthed all others,

And this isn't something limited to the Greek saga either, As the Primordial flame had created Surtr and Musphlhime, whom became the source of all flame at the start of creation.

TL;DR​

• Souls are the metaphysical nature and form of beings.
• Beings are shaped by their souls.
• Gods rule over the nature of their domains, and have it as a part of their Souls.
• Primordials are their domains.

 

[Deagonx]

Souls are the metaphysical nature and form of beings, shaping the physical objects they possess after them.
Souls predate time and space.

Souls correlating to one's nature does not mean souls are concepts. Neither does predating time and space. So this does not pertain to the discussion at hand.

How does a God's domain work?
A God's relationship with their domain is metaphysical in essence, ruling over its nature across space and time and gaining magical powers to influence it as a result.
They also have this nature as an aspect of their soul (form in particular) and it is the determining factor between a god and demigod Soul's.
This is pretty obviously conceptal, but how does this relate to the Primordials?

Several of these videos are quoted inaccurately. The first link does not mention "domains" and the second link does not talk about "ruling over its nature." This is not "pretty obviously conceptual." Collectively all these links actually says it that the power of a god is related to the aspect of the world they rule. Hades rules the underworld, so he has powers of darkness. Poseidon rules the sea, so he has water-related powers. This doesn't mean they are abstract concepts. This is bog-standard mythology.

The Primordials are noted to be their domains and to be synonymous with them, As shown by how Gaia is said to be the formless sprit of the earth, And how all the Primordials are synonymous with theirs.

Your first scan doesn't mention domains, it just says the earth is Gaia's physical form (which means she isn't synonymous to the Earth) and this does not point to an abstract relationship. The second scan which you describe as saying "all Primordials are synonymous with theirs" is just a link to concept art that names four Primordials and says what they are the God of. That isn't evidence of them being conceptual.

Most of this is stuff was addressed in the prior discussion. It would be preferable to seek more staff input rather than spawning a dozen odd new comments over scans that were already discussed.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx You seem to be hell bent on bringing up Gaia as the only argument with being formless when other examples exist, plus the fact they have a more non-physical state as well as being a part of the beginning of everything with Ascension's intro and just the Spark of the world in general says otherwise.

The refute is that being "formless" or "lacking in substance" or "spirits" doesn't make Primordials concepts, so Chaos is not a conceptual goddess which leaves us with no basis for believing magic is conceptual nor that everyone who uses it should have Type 1 Concept Manip.

So we're just gonna ignore the part where their literal existence shaped all of reality as shown with GoW Ascension's intro? Or how anything Primordials in nature are shown to have established ideas/concepts like chaos and order? Or how the spark of the world was where magic and primordial stuff originated in the first place? Sure whatever man.

 

[Deagonx]

You seem to be hell bent on bringing up Gaia as the only argument with being formless when other examples exist, plus the fact they have a more non-physical state as well as being a part of the beginning of everything with Ascension's intro and just the Spark of the world in general says otherwise.

Well, no. When Planck made the two new arguments for being conceptual ('primordial forces' are the same across pantheons, souls shape physical form) I addressed them. I don't know why Planck believes that primordial forces being the same in multiple pantheons would mean they are a concept, or why souls shaping physical form would make them concepts. In any case, those pieces of information aren't evidence for something being a concept.

So we're just gonna ignore the part where their literal existence shaped all of reality as shown with GoW Ascension's intro?

Nothing in the intro indicates something like "their literal existence shaped all of reality." In fact, the scan on their page clarifies they only made the Greek world and Norse Gods are who made the Norse world. However, creating the universe doesn't mean you are conceptual.

Or how anything Primordials in nature are shown to have established ideas/concepts like chaos and order?

Not sure what you mean by this.

Or how the spark of the world was where magic and primordial stuff originated in the first place?

How exactly would that support the argument that they are conceptual?

 

[Theglassman12]

Planck bringing up the point that the primordial forces are the same across realms means they're one and the same regardless of the pantheon we talk about. If you don't know why soul's form is argued to be conceptual when Garm's mere nature itself is being changed by Fenrir's form of the soul to be fundamentally a completely different being, idk what else to tell you other than you're just not paying attention to the scans.

Did I say that creating the universe makes you conceptual? Quote me where I explicitly said that just creating the universe and not that their existence makes up reality is considered conceptual manipulation. Cool, you pointed out that they make the greek world, doesn't change my point that their existence still made reality when each pantheon is their own set of realities in the greater world that Cory Barlog has explained in interviews.

The sparks of the world is literally where forces like Chaos and Order thrive, the former being another primordial force that exists in Greece.

Because they're treated on similar levels with primordials in the first place? Do you have any new arguments beyond just asking questions because once again, I'm waiting for the full refute.

 

[Deagonx]

Planck bringing up the point that the primordial forces are the same across realms means they're one and the same regardless of the pantheon we talk about.

Yes. That's... very clearly what he meant, I know. I am saying that this does not suggest that primordial forces are conceptual.

If you don't know why soul's form is argued to be conceptual when Garm's mere nature itself is being changed by Fenrir's form of the soul to be fundamentally a completely different being, idk what else to tell you other than you're just not paying attention to the scans.

Well, one thing you could tell me other than that, is why affecting someone's soul (in this case, there was no mention of "form" in any of the scans, just the soul in its entirety) resulting in an affect on someone's nature would mean it is conceptual. Souls and nature are very closely related, and the fact that an ethereal essence of oneself would cause a change in oneself is pretty typical and not something that has anything to do with concepts.

Did I say that creating the universe makes you conceptual? Quote me where I explicitly said that just creating the universe and not that their existence makes up reality is considered conceptual manipulation. Cool, you pointed out that they make the greek world, doesn't change my point that their existence still made reality when each pantheon is their own set of realities in the greater world that Cory Barlog has explained in interviews.

"Their existence made reality" isn't really an intelligible phrase. In any case, creation feats don't make one conceptual and none of the scans on the Primordial page refer to a claim like the one you just made, so you'd need to clarify where this si coming from.

The sparks of the world is literally where forces like Chaos and Order thrive, the former being another primordial force that exists in Greece.

I'm aware. Why are you envisioning these forces as concepts instead of simply magic/divinity? I am aware they can be both but everything you and Planck have told me about them is already justified by the fact that they are deities, and doesn't result in them being concepts.

Because they're treated on similar levels with primordials in the first place?

Okay, but if that's your argument then we should just be discussing primordials in the first place and what their justification is for being concepts. As I said, the only scan in their justification is concept art. The only new scan provided was the Gaia scan which does not describe Gaia as a conceptual being, neither directly nor indirectly.

 

[Theglassman12]

Ok? And how does this debunk him arguing they're still treated as one and the same?

Literally when has this been typical when at no point does souls in general function like this? Especially when it fundamentally changes a being from one to a completely different person? Especially when the soul in god of war is made of direction and luck, something not considered a common default for what a soul is? Also it not being spelled out for us that it's the form ignores how only one part of Fenrir's soul was left in Atreus' knife, and Kratos talks about how that part of the soul is capable of changing one's nature, which we literally see when Garm is changed to Fenrir completely.

I literally said the Ascension intro, do I need to spell everything out for you or can you pay attention to what I said?

Literally when has chaos and order been considered magic/divinity? Do you have any form of reference that suggests that's what they are and not the literal concepts of chaos and order? Because that's a bold claim to make without any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Indirectly? You mean how the series describes her as the earth itself and how all earth in the world itself is an extension of her own being? As for directly, if this entire argument stems from that it's not spelled out for us that they're concepts then you don't know how many other verses have concept hax without the word concept being spelled out for us, so if you want to downgrade god of war just because concept isn't spelled out for us, you're gonna have to change a lot of other verses or make a standard change when just saying someone represents a fundamental force of the world (something the primordials are in the first place) is more than sufficient for concept hax.

 

[Deagonx]

Ok? And how does this debunk him arguing they're still treated as one and the same?

It doesn't. The purpose of this thread is to remove Concept Manipulation. He argued that them being similar across pantheons was evidence in favor of them being conceptual. I am saying that it is not.

Literally when has this been typical when at no point does souls in general function like this? Especially when it fundamentally changes a being from one to a completely different person? Especially when the soul in god of war is made of direction and luck, something not considered a common default for what a soul is?

I'm going to cut to the chase here and try to save us some time. Regardless of whether or not this is "how souls typically function" the fact remains that souls in GoW having the quality of influencing physical form or changing one's nature does not make them a concept.

I literally said the Ascension intro, do I need to spell everything out for you or can you pay attention to what I said?

Yes, and when you said this I pointed out that none of that is in the Ascension intro.

Literally when has chaos and order been considered magic/divinity? Do you have any form of reference that suggests that's what they are and not the literal concepts of chaos and order? Because that's a bold claim to make without any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Quite the opposite, you have made the bold claim that any instance of "chaos" and "order" in a fictional setting should be regarded -- by default -- to be referring to abstract concepts. Chaos magic is an extremely common fictional trope, and it is rarely any kind of "conceptual manipulation." There is chaos/order magic in Soul Caliber, World of Darkness, Magic the Gathering, even "My Little Pony" has chaos magic.

Indirectly? You mean how the series describes her as the earth itself and how all earth in the world itself is an extension of her own being?

"Anywhere there were trees and earth and rock, there was Gaia." Yes, I am aware the Earth is her physical form. This doesn't mean that she is conceptual. It would also be true to say something like "Anywhere there were trees, or grass, or plants, there was Swamp Thing" and that wouldn't mean that Swamp Thing is "the abstract concept of flora itself."

As for directly, if this entire argument stems from that it's not spelled out for us that they're concepts then you don't know how many other verses have concept hax without the word concept being spelled out for us, so if you want to downgrade god of war just because concept isn't spelled out for us, you're gonna have to change a lot of other verses or make a standard change when just saying someone represents a fundamental force of the world (something the primordials are in the first place) is more than sufficient for concept hax.

It needn't be direct, but if it is not direct (in terms of affirming it as a concept, idea, abstraction, etc) then it needs to describe it as having the same kinds of qualities as those things, which has not occurred here. And, yes, I am aware many verses have concept manip for reasons that... frankly aren't great. Which is why I have made multiple CRTs on the subject, I made one for Bleach, I voted on one for JJK, I opposed it for DC and Re:Creators, etc.

Also why did you link Marvel Comics there are several scans that actually use the word concept.

You're right that the page on our CM standards likely needs to be updated so that the expectations are clearer, because things like this shouldn't be given concept manipulation.

 

[Antvasima]

Would a good compromise solution here be to simply update the justifications for conceptual manipulation for this verse so it focuses on feats of affecting clearly conceptual forces instead?

I still think that this seems like the best solution here, in order to more clearly establish conceptual manipulation in a much more self-evident manner.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Deagonx so them being similar forces of nature that’s responsible for the creation of their realities is apparently not evidence, riiiiiight…..

Explain why, you keep saying they’re not concepts and you don’t explain why, so why the hell should I take your point seriously?

Ah yes, none of the visual showcase of their existence being what makes all of reality in the Greek pantheon is any proof of them shaping existence, great argument here.

Chaos magic is not what’s stated, it’s chaos and order itself, so maybe back up your points with actual scans if you want me to take your side seriously.

How many times are you going to ignore other scans to back up Gaia’s existence to make your point? You keep doing this every single time anyone brings up any point with Gaia and you just ignore literally everything else. Again this alongside you just ignoring Planck’s entire point is not helping your case.

No it has occurred here, you’re just ignoring the argument and only tackling one point rather than all of them which seems to be a recurring thing for you, also Lord Chaos in Marvel literally has concept hax for just being chaos and being a fundamental aspect of the universe, absolutely nothing about him is stated that he’s a concept and you can ask Eseseso if you think I’m making this up, so yes Marvel is an example to use here.

So make a standard change on concept hax then if you want to change that, because other verses have this for very similar reasons.

@Antvasima just to be clear, do you agree with Planck’s points, but prefer there being more explicit showings of affecting abstract entities?

 

[Deagonx]

so them being similar forces of nature that’s responsible for the creation of their realities is apparently not evidence, riiiiiight…..

A force of nature being similar in two different realms does not mean that the force is conceptual. Gravity could be the same in two universes and that wouldn't make gravity conceptual.

Explain why, you keep saying they’re not concepts and you don’t explain why, so why the hell should I take your point seriously?

It depends on which point specifically you're asking about, but in general the answer is "because that piece of information applies to many things that aren't concepts, so knowing it doesn't tell us something is a concept." As in the gravity example above, the fact that a force is similar in two different worlds doesn't make it conceptual.

Your demand for an explanation is ill-timed. As it is, you and Planck have not provided the explanations and you are the ones making the claim! And yet despite constant requests you've provided no reasoning for why something like being called a "formless spirit lacking in substance" is good evidence for something being a concept.

Ah yes, none of the visual showcase of their existence being what makes all of reality in the Greek pantheon is any proof of them shaping existence, great argument here.

The argument is that the video is not a "showcase of their existence making all of reality."

Chaos magic is not what’s stated, it’s chaos and order itself, so maybe back up your points with actual scans if you want me to take your side seriously.

You are, again, the one with the burden of proof. You have arbitrarily claimed that chaos should be regarded as conceptual by default when it is mentioned. Yet this is backed up by nothing and somehow you can only take me seriously if I -- what exactly, delve into a bunch of unrelated verses that use chaos non-conceptually because you aren't aware of them? That's entirely unreasonable, beginning with you assuming your stance is the default assumption and that you needn't provide any evidence.

How many times are you going to ignore other scans to back up Gaia’s existence to make your point? You keep doing this every single time anyone brings up any point with Gaia and you just ignore literally everything else. Again this alongside you just ignoring Planck’s entire point is not helping your case.

Once again, I've addressed every single scan and new argument brought. You may feel free to quote some argument Planck made that you believe I've ignored and I'll direct you to whatever earlier comment already addressed it.

So make a standard change on concept hax then if you want to change that, because other verses have this for very similar reasons

I will at some point, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. My stance is not that "GoW meets the existing standards but those standards should be changed" it is that "GoW fails to meet the existing standards and those standards should be clarified to prevent these kinds of mistakes."

@Antvasima just to be clear, do you agree with Planck’s points, but prefer there being more explicit showings of affecting abstract entities?

This doesn't make sense. If he feels there needs to be more explicit showings of affecting abstract entities, then he would be agreeing with me. As it is there are no showing of such a thing occurring.