Time Paradox Immunity

[Monarch_Laciel]

Continuing on my crusade to rewrite causality (or at least the wiki's understanding of it), onto Time Paradox Immunity

Won't be as long as my last thread on the subject, but I felt this needed to be done.

As usual, immunity is a large leap to make. I'm less adamant about this than I would be on other uses of the word immunity, seeing as if you can survive your past self being killed, there isn't much else someone can do to your past self to get rid of you in the present.

But when it comes to characters who simply maintain their memories of changed timelines, such as Homura Akemi, Rintaro Okabe (who needs the power listed btw) or the White Quee, that is, in my opinion, not nearly enough proof that they can survive being actually killed in the past.

As such, I think the Time Paradox Immunity page should be renamed Time Paradox Resistance, and split into multiple types. Type 1 would be simply maintaining memories of past or changed timelines, while Type 2 would be actually surviving a past self killed. Maybe there could be a Type 3 for people who aren't immediately erased via time paradox if they do something to eliminate the existence of their present selves, but will be erased eventually, like Marty McFly. If anyone thinks of any other types, speak up.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Honestly, I think that the way we are splitting these types of feats so much is just overly complicated. We just need to list what each feat entails, simple.

 

[ThisIsMySwagPack]

If there are characters who currently have Time Paradox Immunity listed, yet aren't really immune it should be fixed. It's a big difference.

 

[LazyHunter]

The White Queen does have time paradox immunity, though, her feat for it is even listed in her page.

After Kyousuke interfered with causality and changed their timeline, the White Queen was the only being besides him and the girl he saved to remember the original flow of events. Not even that, despite the project that had allowed her to manifest on Earth in a weakened form during the volume's events never having existed in the new timeline, thus never having been summoned in the first place, the White Queen was able to use brute force to reject the changes brought by causality and reappear one more time for a short talk with Kyousuke.

The project of that particular novel had summoned her by splitting her body and mind up (her mind was basically a noncorporeal entity which appeared in some AR things). Despite Kyousuke changing the past and preventing that project from ever happening in the first place, her mind still showed up to talk to Kyousuke the following day as if nothing had changed, ignoring the obvious time paradox.

 

[LordAizenSama]

Seems legit^

I also agree that splitting this into so many sub categories is counter productive

 

[FateAlbane]

Same as Matthew and Aizen said. This is overcomplicating stuff out of nowhere and counter-productive were the exact words I had in my mind.

It also would be the same as invalidating legitimate feats from various characters for no reason. At this rate, no one would ever have the power because we would be exaggerating the recquirements and being overspecific for no reason at all.

 

[ThisIsMySwagPack]

Just give Time Paradox Immunity to characters who won't get affected if you kill them in the past.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I also agree that this split is needlessly complicated.. I agree with Matt, Aizen and Fate here.

 

[FateAlbane]

It also would be the same as invalidating legitimate feats from various characters for no reason. At this rate, no one would ever have the power because we would be exaggerating the recquirements and being overspecific for no reason at all.

 

[FateAlbane]

I could even mention the cast of Chrono Trigger (sans Lavos) for this. The plot points of the entire game rely on Time Travel and they have lots of instances to back up their time paradox immunity, but no one involved gets killed in the past somehow.

Going by this new logic, we would literally be nitpicking to invalidate the entirety of their other feats.

It's absurd.

 

[ThisIsMySwagPack]

"... will not be killed or erased from existence if their past self is somehow killed."

That's the condition. If a character doesn't fulfill it, then remove the ability. There isn't any need to split the ability into more categories.

 

[FateAlbane]

Except that time paradoxes do not apply only to death and killing. That is the most basic notion in regards to it - any changes that involve someone in the past will affect them in the future no matter what.

It doesn't apply only to killing like you seem to be thinking, anything done to then should by all means affect their future selves with the resulting changes in the timeline.

Again, this is nit/cherrypicking and would invalidate lots of legitimate feats I know of for no reason other than being overspecific, which would also complicate things needlessly in the long run.

 

[ThisIsMySwagPack]

I know what Immunity to Time Paradox is, thank you for your concern.

If characters have legitimate feats, then they have this ability.

 

[FateAlbane]

"... will not be killed or erased from existence if their past self is somehow killed."
That's the condition. If a character doesn't fulfill it, then remove the ability. There isn't any need to split the ability into more categories.

/\ Since you know what it is, I don't see the reason why you thought this was a point.

 

[ThisIsMySwagPack]

Quoting the page of this wiki.

 

[ALRF]

I agree with Matt idea, much more simple than just splitting it into many categories.

 

[Reppuzan]

Given that I wrote the page, I wouldn't mind just revising it to be inclusive of the other aspects of time paradoxes.

But yes, I'd much rather just explain the extent of their Time Paradox Immunity rather than break it all into subcategories. We're already having trouble dealing with the 10 types of immortality that we have.

 

[FateAlbane]

Then I explained why your interpretation of that was being overspecific, then you told me you know the definition of TP already, which, again, invalidates your previous point.

So this part of the discussion is settled.

 

[LazyHunter]

Just before anyone says anything about the feat of the White Queen not involving being killed in the past. Blood Sign chapters each have a Facts section. These sections have objective info about the chapter's contents, and are even a thing in-universe (The Colorless Litte Girl has the ability to access the Facts of the world to read the opponent's stats and abilities). The Facts of the chapter where the White Queen ignores a time paradox include this Fact:

• The White Queen used brute force to hold back the incident's changes and thus maintained her memories. This suggests that even rearranging causality would fail to affect her being, anything she caused directly, or anyone she killed.

 

[ThisIsMySwagPack]

Yes. Monarch mentioned that there are characters that won't immediately get erased if you kill them in the past, but will be erased eventually. Things like that should definitely be mentioned on their pages.

 

[Reppuzan]

Here's my current definition:

A lesser form of Acausality, this ability is attributed to characters who can interact with others as per the laws of cause and effect but will not be affected by events that happen to their past selves. Hence, if they were killed in the past, it would not affect them in the future. In addition, these individuals would still retain any knowledge they gained in the past even if the events of a timeline were revised. It is thus possible to defeat these characters through conventional means, but it's virtually impossible to do so by killing them in the past with Time Travel or a similar ability.

What do you guys think?

 

[FateAlbane]

I like that definition, Reppu. A simple is best approach, straight to the point and still well explained. Good for me.

 

[ALRF]

Good for me too.

 

[The_Smashor]

This would certainly be the only thing Quint would have going for him. (As in if you somehow die in his fight he won't faze out of existence or anything like that)

 

[Antvasima]

@Reppuzan

I think that your definition text seems fine.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I like it too.

 

[Magi_Hussie]

I like the new definition for it.