• 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.

Truth FMA Downgrade

if Truth rlly has Omniscient statements, it is a proof that it should be Omniscient or something, the whole Truth character seems like it
 
in order to qualify for Omniscient you need to know everything that has happened, is happening, and might/will happen, Truth's issue is we can't prove the ladder

So, for the downgrade of Omniscient to happen, the downgraders would need to prove Truth was unaware of the actions Father and Edward Elric would make throughout the story.
 
its more of you need to prove that Truth knows everything that might/will happen in the future, we can safely say he knows everything that happened and is happening but the future bit is the hardest to prove, but that is my stance on this
 
its more of you need to prove that Truth knows everything that might/will happen in the future, we can safely say he knows everything that happened and is happening but the future bit is the hardest to prove,

From what I know of FMA(FMAB)'s story, the downgraders would have trouble proving Truth didn't know what would happen throughout the story.
 
Requesting a Gallery for Truth to be made and put/listed this image in the Gallery as “Anime Only”

Edit: Gallery was already made, oops still requesting the image


image0.png
 
The main thing here. Does being the universe itself include the time taken for the universe? Frankly, I have always believed that Truth was designed according to Pantheism belief.
 
As i said before, there is only a Anti-Feat for the truth, and at least 2 feats for omniscient.
also apparently as showed before, the "surprised" scan is from anime, not from manga. it can be considered canon/adaptation issue or whatever
 
Considering that Low 2-C is 3-A, I am neutral for the moment
The last time I saw FMAB was a long time ago. so I doesn't remember well. Truth in both the Fullmetal Alchemist Bortherhood Anime and the Fullmetal Alchemist Manga (also in the first adaptation, but it is not canon and our profiles are based on the canonical work) have few appearances of the truth, however in his few speeches he only mentions being the Universe (that's for what i remember)
 
Only Universe? I remember it saying “Truth” and “All” as well.
I checked and that's what he says:

"im what you call world, or perhaps universe, or mayhap founder, or even truth, or all these things together or none of these, however I am also you"

at least in italian Dub, should be the same as a sub, though ye i know he said more than a word in his quotes. though i think here the most impressive in terms of Attack Potenct is "Universe", though even founder and truth means something, but it isn't in vsbw standards
 
So what do we do with immortality?
type 8 aswell, also i propose to adding Abstract Existence type 1 (truth is everything whithin the universe and the law of equivalent change) Higher-Dimensional Existence (he is the entire reallity, he exist beyond the gate of truth) information and memory manipulation (someone already proposed it above)
 
Wouldn't Truth need to be proven to be time as well? Or else the best you can assume via "being the universe" is 3-A?

Also, as this thread reminded me, we should probably have a thread that differentiates regular omnipresence from "is the form of X, so you scale to X's tier". Not every omnipresent being scales to the totality of the tier of the object they represent, so it makes this a confusing case between why a universal omnipresent isn't Low 2-C or 3-A but any generic character that is the universe gets either of the latter tiers.
 
Wouldn't Truth need to be proven to be time as well? Or else the best you can assume via "being the universe" is 3-A?

Also, as this thread reminded me, we should probably have a thread that differentiates regular omnipresence from "is the form of X, so you scale to X's tier". Not every omnipresent being scales to the totality of the tier of the object they represent, so it makes this a confusing case between why a universal omnipresent isn't Low 2-C or 3-A but any generic character that is the universe gets either of the latter tiers.
being everything or reallity is apparently considered Low 2-C in our standards
 
Even if we say that Truth is time itself, shouldn't we just take it as a single point in time since the context is so inadequate? Since the truth is not all points of time... so 3-A should be taken instead of low 2-C
 
I think Truth should be "3-A, possibly higher" based on what I have read here, but that is my two-cents, this is my first time dealing with something like this
 
Also, as this thread reminded me, we should probably have a thread that differentiates regular omnipresence from "is the form of X, so you scale to X's tier". Not every omnipresent being scales to the totality of the tier of the object they represent, so it makes this a confusing case between why a universal omnipresent isn't Low 2-C or 3-A but any generic character that is the universe gets either of the latter tiers.
I still think this is needed btw^

If being x object grants you x tier, then we need to differentiate the standard from omnipresent who are just that, omnipresents, and don't get the same kind of tiering. Otherwise, it's a big grey area of confusion.
 
well in fact, the reason why ''possible'' can be written is that the character may be the future, the past and the present, but because the evidence is insufficient, "possible higher" can be put.
the possibly higher meant a higher into 3-A, it would be useless for say that would be Low 2-C if it had context
 
Back
Top