- 15,414
- 5,008
I never liked the Abstract Existence page and it now seems like a good time to tackle it given 2 threads where its structure & wording made problems. Here's a breakdown of the page.
>"Abstract Existence is the ability to embody an abstraction.. "
"Embodiment/embody" is a dumb word that most of the time doesn't mean what we aim it to mean and yet the page directly starts by saying that you need to embody X thing to get the power.
>", and being immortal thanks to it."
That's random & whimsical, there is no reason as to why you would be immortal thanks due to being an abstract, what if when you die other person becomes the user and you just die?
>"Embodying a concept is not enough to obtain this ability"
Why the hell did the page start with that before then? This is way too silly for our wiki.
>"an abstract needs feats or reliable statements proving that the concept they represent grants them Immortality/Regenerationn or control over the abstraction"
It now talks about an abstract. What even is that? Who knows the page never cared to state. It can also be more than just Immor., regen or control over the abstraction, one can also gain powers not related to their abstractions, which who knows if it would qualify for the power under our standards.
>Type 1
Oh so they lack a true physical form, so would Non-Physical Interaction work to hit them? The answer is not without the ability to hit Abstracts, but the page doesn't state as much. In fact it claims the avatars of a type 1 AE user to be physical, which comes out of nowhere, they can be incorporeal, they can have nonexistent physiology or be as abstracts as the user.
>Type 2
Embodying again. You need to destroy the abstraction to kill them but you can also affect them normally? What a misleading AF way to put it is that, I mean if you kill the user by punching it beyond their regen/immortality then suddenly their abstraction goes down with them, that's very, very notable yet the page doesn't point it out.
And the types just end there, what about abstracts who have the previously said control over their thing but no regen/Immor.? I guess there is no AE for them, but then why was the control over their abstraction even said???
I recently had to remove this feat from Odin's profile together with his Conceptual Manipulation, this being due how he just killed and revived Hela. Hela in turn was the embodiment of death and killing her meant destroying the concept of death, but Hela was very much physical so affecting it meant no fancy powers. And that is a big problem, using common sense and not our silly standards then Hela has an abstract existence. And it's not like people is smart enough to know that she doesn't have Abstract Existence by our standards, if it kinda looks like she has it then she will be thought to have it, meaning fancy & incorrect powers for her and anyone who may affect her, same with anyone who kinda looks to have an abstract existence.
>"Abstract Existence is the ability to embody an abstraction.. "
"Embodiment/embody" is a dumb word that most of the time doesn't mean what we aim it to mean and yet the page directly starts by saying that you need to embody X thing to get the power.
>", and being immortal thanks to it."
That's random & whimsical, there is no reason as to why you would be immortal thanks due to being an abstract, what if when you die other person becomes the user and you just die?
>"Embodying a concept is not enough to obtain this ability"
Why the hell did the page start with that before then? This is way too silly for our wiki.
>"an abstract needs feats or reliable statements proving that the concept they represent grants them Immortality/Regenerationn or control over the abstraction"
It now talks about an abstract. What even is that? Who knows the page never cared to state. It can also be more than just Immor., regen or control over the abstraction, one can also gain powers not related to their abstractions, which who knows if it would qualify for the power under our standards.
>Type 1
Oh so they lack a true physical form, so would Non-Physical Interaction work to hit them? The answer is not without the ability to hit Abstracts, but the page doesn't state as much. In fact it claims the avatars of a type 1 AE user to be physical, which comes out of nowhere, they can be incorporeal, they can have nonexistent physiology or be as abstracts as the user.
>Type 2
Embodying again. You need to destroy the abstraction to kill them but you can also affect them normally? What a misleading AF way to put it is that, I mean if you kill the user by punching it beyond their regen/immortality then suddenly their abstraction goes down with them, that's very, very notable yet the page doesn't point it out.
And the types just end there, what about abstracts who have the previously said control over their thing but no regen/Immor.? I guess there is no AE for them, but then why was the control over their abstraction even said???
I recently had to remove this feat from Odin's profile together with his Conceptual Manipulation, this being due how he just killed and revived Hela. Hela in turn was the embodiment of death and killing her meant destroying the concept of death, but Hela was very much physical so affecting it meant no fancy powers. And that is a big problem, using common sense and not our silly standards then Hela has an abstract existence. And it's not like people is smart enough to know that she doesn't have Abstract Existence by our standards, if it kinda looks like she has it then she will be thought to have it, meaning fancy & incorrect powers for her and anyone who may affect her, same with anyone who kinda looks to have an abstract existence.
