• 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.

Rewriting the Abstract Existence page pt.2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm also neutral on type 3, though you could make an arguments for its existence for indexing purposes.
 
This seems perfectly fine to me.

I really don't have anything to add at this point. The page's draft looks good the way it is.
 
So should the change be applied then?
 
Personally I believe Type 3 is almost needed. For characters such as Nikola Tesla who are described as "embodying" something (in this case lightning) yet don't require the elimination of the concept to die it feels like Type 3 is the spot for them.

Either that or we say unless you fall into Type 1 or 2 you don't qualify for abstraction at all.
 
Tesla is type 1 though, he is a conceptual existences that is lightning essentially, like M is a conceptual existence that is infinite darkness.
 
He is absolutely not conceptual. In any way.

Edit: If you want to discuss this message me on my wall; this isn't the place.
 
I like the new page. I also like Type 3. Seems necessary
 
@Assalt How so?

M is certainty conceptual, he is everything in sharnoth.

And again statements of being a concept not a person:

" 『Ú╗ÆÒü«þÄï』

ÒÇÇÕàëÒüîÕÅìÕ┐£ÒüùÒÇüÕú░ÒéÆÕæèÒüÆÒéïÒÇé ÒÇǵƒöÒéëÒüïÒü½ÒÇüÕñºÒüäÒü¬ÒéïÞêêÕæ│ÒéÆþñ║ÒüÖµÅ║ÒéëÒüÄÒéÆõ╝┤ÒüäÒü¬ÒüîÒéëÒÇéµäŵÇØÒéÆþñ║ÒüùÒÇüµ¡úÒüùÒüÅÚƒ│Õú░Òü¬ÒéëÒü¼õ©ìÕÅ»µÇØÞ¡░Òü«Õú░ÒéƵö¥ÒüíÒÇüÕàëÒü»õ╝ÜÞ®▒ÒüÖÒéïÒÇéÕñ▒ÒéÅÒéîÒüƒþ®║ÒüîÒüïÒüñÒüªÒééÒüƒÒéëÒüùÒüƒÕàëÒü½ÒÇüÒéêÒüÅõ╝╝ÒüƒÒÇüÒü¥ÒüúÒüƒÒüÅþò░Òü¬ÒéïÒééÒü«Òü»Þ¬×ÒéïÒü«ÒüáÒÇé ÒÇÇÒéåÒéëÒéüÒüÅÕ╣╗µâ│Òü«ÒéêÒüåÒü½ÒÇé ÒÇÇÚÇÖÒüäÕ»äÒéïþò░Õ¢óÒü«ÒéêÒüåÒü½ÒÇé

『ÒüØÒéîÒü»õ¢òÞÇàÒüºÒüÖÒüï』

ÒÇîõ║║ÚûôÒüºÒü»Òü¬ÒüäÒÇé ÒÇÇÒüìÒéÅÒéüÒüªµªéÕ┐ÁþÜäÒü¬Õ¡ÿÕ£¿ÒüáÒü¿《þÁÉþñ¥》Òü»þÁÉÞ½ûõ╗ÿÒüæÒüªÒüäÒéïÒÇì

『µªéÕ┐Á』

ÒÇîÒüØÒüåÒüáÒÇéÒüéÒéîÒü»ÒÇüµ╝åÚ╗ÆÒüáÒÇì

『Òü¬ÒéëÒü░ÒüØÒéîÒü»Õ¢óÞÇîõ©èþÜäÒü¬Õ¡ÿÕ£¿Òü½ÚüÄÒüÄÒüÜÒÇü ÒÇÇÕ╣╗µâ│ÒüºÒüéÒéèÒÇüõ©ûþòîÒü½ÒÇüõ║║Òü½ÒÇüþë®þÉåþÜäÒü¬Õ¢▒Úƒ┐ÒéÆÒééÒüƒÒéëÒüÖÒééÒü«ÒüºÒü»Òü¬ÒüäÒü«ÒüºÒüÖÒü¡』

ÒÇîÒüØÒüåÒüºÒééÒü¬ÒüäÒÇì

『ÔöÇÔöÇ´╝ƒ』

ÒÇîþÉåÞºúÒéÆÞÂàÒüêÒüƒÒééÒü«ÒÇé ÒÇÇõ║║µÖ║Òü«ÕÅèÒü░Òü¼ÒééÒü«ÒÇé ÒÇÇÒüØÒéîÒéÆõ¥ïÒüêÒü░Õ╣╗µâ│Òü¿Õæ╝ÒüÂÒü¬ÒéëÒü░ÒÇüþó║ÒüïÒü½ÒÇüÒüØÒüåÒüáÒéìÒüåÒü¿ÒééÒÇì"

Unless you want to argue that M is a concept but Tesla isn't cause while M is an old one, Tesla was only cursed by an old one, merely becoming the incarnation/avator of lightning.

In which case i might agree, unless someone finds statements of Tesla himself being a concept, but since relevant stuff are untranslated i wouldn't know where to find such a thing, and quite frankly don't care, the evidence i do know unquestionable makes M a concept, whether it scales to Tesla is what people who know the untranslated stuff would have to answer.
 
Take that to Assalt's wall, please. I think the majority of us would rather not see this thread derailed when it's right on the verge of being concluded.
 
I agree with MrKingOfNegativity.
 
About type 3, I think that adding it could be useful.

"Abstracts" who aren't necessarily immortal as long as their concept exist are a thing in fiction, and ignoring it feels wrong.

I think that type 3 should be something like "has a significant control over the concept because they embody it" or something like that.

I get the "it's superfluous" argument, but that applies to type 2 as well, because that is either type 8 or Mid-Godly
 
I am fine with if you wish to include type 3.
 
This seems reasonable.

Question: Does this mean abstracts that don't regenerate and have a physical body, but still represent a concept now have the ability?
 
I did not catch this discussion. Can anyone make a quick summary of all the proposed changes?
 
@Kep We have agree to 2 types of abstract existence, you can see them here.

The discussion now is whether to include a 3rd type which will be something like "has significant control over concepts because they embody it"
 
That type 3 doesn't seem necessary. If they control it, just give them concept manip. No need to have a specific type of abstract nature that gives control.
 
You could say "just give them type 8/Mid-Godly" for type 2 though.

It's more for indexing purposes than anything.

Just like, say, type 3 immortality. You don't need an immortality type telling you that someone with low-godly can survive being reduced to a pool of blood, but we have it anyway
 
If we were to get rid of abilities just because they overlap in some ways, then anything that is related to Reality Warping, like Creation, Transmutation, Spatial Hax and etc. would need to be removed, which, needless to say, is horrible.
 
I'd rather not mix some degree of conceptual manip (Type 3) with what is usually seen as a state of being (Type 1 and 2) if possible, but the rest seems fine.
 
Saikou has a point. What do the rest of you think?
 
I'm completely okay with any changes since everyone makes sense

But please discuss who gets what types in a different thread so as to not derail the thread
 
If we aren't adding type 3, should I add a note or something explaining that embodying a concept alone doesn't give abstract existence, and that you need statements/feats of Regenerationn/immortality to get the power?

This way we can avoid "X embodies a concept, so they have Mid-Godly"
 
One question: weren't we also going to gauge the kind of abstraction being used as well? I believe that that was suggested in the previous thread.

I think it went something like:

  1. Transcendental (no idea what this is supposed to be)
  2. Concept (surely everyone here is familiar with this)
  3. Idea (a concept as it is outlined in Idealism and Nominalism)
  4. Possibility (anything that could be, but presently isn't)
  5. Physical Constant (don't know how this would work)
  6. Alignment (isn't this a concept/idea though?)
 
Aeyu proposed to do that yes. Imo it's a bit unnecessary, mostly because what a character embodies should be always explained on a page with AE anyway.
 
I agree with Kal. The specifics of the AE should just be mentioned on the relevant profile instead of all possible types of abstractions being explained on the AE page.
 
Also agree with Kal, anyway i think we have come to a conclusion here; 2 types of abstract existence and a note explaining that embodying a concept alone doesn't give abstract existence, with that i think the changes can be applied.
 
I am not sure about the new note. Embodying a concept is traditionally all that has been required to qualify.

We might have to perform a lot of confusing revisions if we include it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
12
Views
1K
Hixkaryana
Hixkaryana
LightSoul8
Dreamworks Death Downgrade
Replies
2
Views
402
Thelastmlg
Thelastmlg
God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
32
Views
3K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Eneseditzm0
Aku Abstract Existence
Replies
22
Views
996
Eneseditzm0
Eneseditzm0
Question
Replies
8
Views
882
Curcuma_x_curcuma
Back
Top