• 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.
People were objecting to type 3, either we include type 3 or add the note, cause just embodying a concept won't meet the current criteria for either type 1 or 2.
 
Can you provide an example text for what type 3 would look like? That would help diminish a lot of confusion.
 
Antvasima said:
Embodying a concept is traditionally all that has been required to qualify.
Click to expand...
That's just people giving the ability to characters that shouldn't have it.

"This term means that a certain character is an immaterial embodiment of a fundamental abstract concept, and is able to regenerate as long as the concept itself continues to exist.

It should be noted that simply being representative of a concept does not qualify a character for this ability, as it only applies to the ones that fulfill the above requirements."

^That's in the current abstract existence page
 
Alright first of all I would like to say that I appreciate the enormous amount of work Kal has put into this. I also think everyone helping will make this page be more straightforward but the brunt lied on Kals shoulders - Kudos to that.

That being said I have some minor things to add which may be added or implemented in the page. I am going to post them later down the day, just wanted to make sure I dont forget it - so see this as a placeholder.
 
@Kaltias

Okay. Noted.

However, I still think that somebody should write up an example text for type 3 in order for us to more easily evaluate whether or not it should be included.
 
@Raven

Thank you. I look forward to your post.

@Ant

Type 3: These characters embody an abstraction, but can still be killed using normal means, because they are not reliant on it. However, they can control the abstraction itself and/or its manifestations.

^I was thinking about something like this
 
I guess? I remember something about the CT supposedly being type 2 a few months ago but idk what happened to it.

The two characters posted by CP at the beginning are a good example
 
Kaltias said:
Type 3: These characters embody an abstraction, but can still be killed using normal means, because they are not reliant on it. However, they can control the abstraction itself and/or its manifestations.

^I was thinking about something like this
Click to expand...
Well, I personally wouldn't mind including type 3 in the page in that case.
 
Kaltias said:
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
Click to expand...
Are their existences in some way abstract, though?

Isn't this more being a represention of an abstraction, than it is having an abstract existence?
 
DontTalkDT said:
Kaltias said:
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
Click to expand...
Are their existences in some way abstract, though?
Isn't this more being a represention of an abstraction, than it is having an abstract existence?
Click to expand...
I mean, I would say that Type 2 isn't a truly abstract existence either; as I see it, the only difference is that a Type 2 abstract can regenerate from even total nonexistence as long as their respective abstraction exists.

Furthermore, the description for Type 2 outright states that someone of this kind of abstract existence can still be affected without altering the abstraction they embody. It's possible that such an entity could have a physical form.
 
Well, I personally think that all embodiments of abstract concepts should probably have the abstract existence ability, but I am not particularly well informed regarding the subject.
 
It really depends from how we want to define it, at the end of the day.

Like, the only characters truly abstract are those with type 1 anyway, someone with type 2 can be a physical being
 
Well, from what I recall, it seems like most staff members think that the draft is fine and that type 3 should be included.
 
I want to hear DT's opinion first, they were disagreeing with type 3
 
Okay, you can ask DontTalk to comment again if you wish.
 
Kaltias said:
It really depends from how we want to define it, at the end of the day.
Like, the only characters truly abstract are those with type 1 anyway, someone with type 2 can be a physical being
Click to expand...
I mean, as I see it a Type 2 would basically have an abstract core / an abstract true self and just use/need physical vessels to interact with the physical world.


But it is not that important to make the destinction, I guess. If the popular option is to have it, we can add it. (Though we should be very strict with the types also being added then)
 
In my draft, "I'm a concept but i use avatars" would fall under type 1.

Type 2 is more "You can't kill me because a concept keeps me alive"
 
I guess that is one way valid way to do the distinction.
 
Let's be fair to other staff and give 12 hours before closing this thread. The sun doesn't light all hemispheres at once, so to speak. If no one replies further, Hop thinks it's safe to close it and continue.
 
I'll write a final draft tomorrow.

Just to be sure that we are all on the same boat:

1 -> Character is purely a concept. Can have avatars but those are just projections and affecting them does not affect the abstract self

2 -> Character is immortal thanks to a concept, but can be affected without affecting the abstraction, they simply won't die

3 -> Character can be killed with normal means, but has concept manip.
 
Then what of characters that are called "embodiment" but just display extreme affinity for their concepts? Just gain the powers surrounding with without having any abstraction listed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
7
Views
953
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
32
Views
3K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Question
Replies
8
Views
785
Curcuma_x_curcuma
Quintessence_PE
  • Locked
YanSen ae type 1
Replies
19
Views
1K
Quintessence_PE
Quintessence_PE
Megaraptor149
  • Locked
GOH: Regarding Abstract Existence (Type 1)
Replies
19
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top