Revisions to High-Godly and True-Godly Regenerationn

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the support Matthew.

 

[JackJoyce]

I want to ask something. Does nuking the dimension kills a Type 3 or 4 concept by default? Because they are not transcendent of the reality.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, Promestein told me that she had limited access to her computer, so we might have to wait a few days for her to respond here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I guess no debate other than "no" can be had for True-Godly. Wonderful. High-Godly becomes surviving destruction of a Type 2 Concept as an added bonus to the mind-body-soul triad of Mid-Godly.

Everything sound correct?

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that I am mostly fine with it, but we preferably need more staff input, and also need to organise a revision thread to find all characters with High-Godly Regenerationn to see if they meet the new requirements.

 

[Andytrenom]

One important thing to establish sooner rather than later is when can we assume Regenerationn extends to restoration of the concept as well? As opposed to the situation Kal mentioned where a character regenerates but just exists without his concept

Do we need explicit statements or is it likely it can be a reasonable assumption in multiple scenarios?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think it can be assumed that if they come back from conceptual erasure they can regenerate concepts. Otherwise we can call into question all of Mid-Godly too, with "how do we know they can't just survive without a body and mind". Unless specifically mentioned (as with Ashen One who resurrects despite being specifically mindless), I think it is a non-issue.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

So.. uuhhh.. question in this standard of High godly... What does "concept" mean/embody. Like the concept of "being/self?" the concept of the "person's existence?" or does the being targeted actually have to embody something like Chaos, war, discord, "What comes after death?" Time and etc?

 

[Antoniofer]

I guess its the concept of oneself, although, iirc someone said that, according to ones philosophy, erasing ones body, mind and soul already counts as conceptual erasure.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

The concept of "Mind" and "Soul" i could see it.

What if the being is the embodiment of another entirely different concept for example, The concept of time. He is a time god. He gets erased, and comes back. where would he fit in this "new" standard?Since the concept of time is apart of his concept of "self"

 

[KingPin0422]

I guess its the concept of oneself, although, iirc someone said that, according to ones philosophy, erasing ones body, mind and soul already counts as conceptual erasure.

I disagree. Complete erasure of someone from existence does not erase their concept as well (if we're talking Aristotelian concepts), unless you erase the existence of every iteration of that person across reality.

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah, not a fan of dividing concepts in types, seems like overcomplicated for the sake of complicating. I assume that, ones that your idea its erased, people wouldn't remember anymore, one is no longer part of the afterlife and whatever and anything ones made across existence was decreated. The only thing above concepts are archetypes and perpective, so, maybe one can still regen from those even after conceptual erasure.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Wait, so surviving the destruction of a type 2 concept gives you the new High-Godly?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Regenerating from mind body soul and type 2 concept does.

 

[Executor_N0]

I guess its the concept of oneself, although, iirc someone said that, according to ones philosophy, erasing ones body, mind and soul already counts as conceptual erasure.

More specifically, in some philosophies the soul itself is the essence of a being. Many seem to relate souls as "an intangible body of the human being," and in fact many philosophies already treat souls as equivalents of concepts, but concepts determine universal essences, while souls determine particular essences.

I would say that this could depend on cosmology for cosmology, which is the important point to take into account when the new description is made

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

How many would qualify for this, and what is the exreme detailed reason why they qualified for it?? is there is an amazing example someone has in mind to help me understand the "new" High Godly?

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

I see.

 

[Kaltias]

I think it can be assumed that if they come back from conceptual erasure they can regenerate concepts. Otherwise we can call into question all of Mid-Godly too, with "how do we know they can't just survive without a body and mind". Unless specifically mentioned (as with Ashen One who resurrects despite being specifically mindless), I think it is a non-issue.

That's a false equivalence though.

We assume that someone regenerating from EE has Mid-Godly because that's what we see regenerating. They don't resurrect without a mind, nor without a body, nor without a soul (Excluding a handful of cases)

With concepts it's different, also because a degree of resistance to concept manipulation would be required either way to regenerate in the first place, as you'd be doing something despite the concept allowing your existence not being there

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm sorry I don't understand the point. We don't see a soul regenerate. If their concept is erased, and they return, that's enough.

 

[Kaltias]

The point is that since you need resistance to concept manipulation in the first place to regenerate (Because a concept isn't a part of you, it's the universe saying "you are allowed to exist") assuming that someone "regenerated" a concept is just assuming an extra ability for reasons that amount to "why not"

 

[Antvasima]

@Kaltias

So what, if anything, would you suggest that we change for our current standards?

 

[JackJoyce]

I must emphasize that the majority of the characters with High-Godly in our present system actually is an avatar of a higher dimensional entity

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

This is a little off-topic, but we should make a power called Resilience, which is to immortality type 2 what Regenerationn is to immortality type 3.

 

[Hykuu]

"

• True-Godly is flawed in that it is the only Regenerationn based purely on tier rather than damage regenerated from"
  
  Lol? You do realize that how much damage you take is reliant tiers here, like 1-A, right?

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

What if the 1-A is bound to our laws of physics, and cannot destroy elementary particles?

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

No, damage is not reliant on tiers. At tiers 10 to 3 it is partially reliant on difference between tiers, but regenerating from a 3-A punching you is no more impressive than regenerating from a 8-B punching you if you are splattered to individual cells by both punches

 

[DarkGrath]

No, damage is not reliant on tiers. At tiers 10 to 3 it is partially reliant on difference between tiers, but regenerating from a 3-A punching you is no more impressive than regenerating from a 8-B punching you if you are splattered to individual cells by both punches

and that's exactly why low tier characters with amazing regen are so hard to get good matches for

 

[Hykuu]

No, damage is not reliant on tiers. At tiers 10 to 3 it is partially reliant on difference between tiers, but regenerating from a 3-A punching you is no more impressive than regenerating from a 8-B punching you if you are splattered to individual cells by both punches

It is more impressive that you regenerate from a 1-A erasing you rather than some 9-C

 

[Andytrenom]

How about instead of regenerating EE that comes from a 1-A, you consider True-Godly to be regen from EE that works on a 1-A?

 

[Hykuu]

they are the same lol, if a 1-A being can erase people's existence their EE would scale to their tier by default unless explicitly stated otherwise for some reason, it is completely illogical to say that a 1-A would have erasure on the same level as some 8-B

 

[Andytrenom]

If Bill Cipher can't automatically be assumed to transmute 4-Ds I don't see why a 1-A can automatically be assumed to be able to erase other 1-As just for having EE

 

[AnonymousBlank]

Actually, why wouldn't their EE be the same as an 8-B's if they have shown no feats of it being stromger than normal. Hax is independent of tiering unless it works on a higher d being so there is no reason to assume its of a certain level without proof.

 

[Hykuu]

why are you comparing Bill cipher to how the 1-A tier operates, again, we wouldn't be assuming that a 1-A cant transmute a 4D if they've shown transmutation hax (but not on a 4D), right?

 

[Andytrenom]

@Hykuu Bill has 4-D power but it isn't assumed that he can use his hax on 4-Ds as well, by the same token someone who has 1-A power shouldn't automatically be able to use his hax on 1-As as well. That's how a standards would work and Bill not being 1-A is irrelevant

 

[Hykuu]

yes it obviously is, again, look at what I said, we should also equally assume that 1-As can't effect 5Ds with their hax if they haven't shown it. regardless of them being the same tier the same away both analogies are being quantified stands the same.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Your earlier comments were on the other side.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The point is that since you need resistance to concept manipulation in the first place to regenerate (Because a concept isn't a part of you, it's the universe saying "you are allowed to exist") assuming that someone "regenerated" a concept is just assuming an extra ability for reasons that amount to "why not"

...no, you really wouldn't, that's the point. The Regenerationn bypasses that resistance of which you speak. High-Godly is effectively regenerating that concept back into reality alongside anything else you have. You'd no more need resistance to conceptual manip than resistance to soul manip.

 

[Antoniofer]

People still comment about "dimensional/1-A erasure" but I'm pretty sure that people doesn't known what that means. And, what's exactly the difference from regenerating from type 2 conceptual erasure and type 3 when the idea of the character is simply that, an idea?

 

[Antvasima]

Would somebody be willing to ask Azathoth to comment here. I think that it seems unlikely that we will manage to reach a safe and well-considered conclusion otherwise.

 

[Andytrenom]

Sure