Type 5 Acausality Issues/Clarification

[RotofBots]

To begin, there are currently some uncertainties in regards to Type 5 Acausality. Thare has been confusion on the following things:

1. What evidence/quotes does one need to be given it
2. What Abilities are needed to bypass it
3. Whether Type 5 should be given to characters who aren't 1-A and above in the first place

My hope is that these issues are resolved and clarified in this thread

 

[DMB_1]

Following.

 

[Zenkaibattery1]

Following.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Guys there's a button on the OP of every thread that says "Follow"

 

[DMB_1]

I like to acknowledge my own presence.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

I don't understand why 3 is an issue. Why would you have to be 1-A to not be bound by cause and effect.

 

[RotofBots]

I don't understand why 3 is an issue. Why would you have to be 1-A to not be bound by cause and effect.

I added that as some people were inferring that you need to be 1-A to get it. Hence, why I added that in the OP.

 

[The_Causality]

 

[TriforcePower1]

Following. I think this should be put into the highlight thread

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Guys

Stop posting that you are following it

Click follow on the top right of the OP

 

[Wokistan]

Well let's begin with stuff:

1: I got type 5 acausality with this, so here's a guideline

2: I guess a similar state of existence, feats of affecting someone like that, 1-A powers, and maybe higher dimensional powers.

3: I'm okay with it, but we should definitely be strict with it. Type 4 is a much safer default for most questionable cases.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

Can we clarify on higher-dimensional? Do you mean someone in a higher dimension or someone accessing a higher dimension would be able to affect said character unbound by cause and effect?

 

[Kaltias]

Type 5 acausality is essentially "stuff that exists outside of causality and cannot be affected for that reason".

Wok already answered the other two points as I would

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I don't think it exists. I don't think most types of acausality exist except for type 1. Everything else is just type 2 or not acausality at all.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

As for affecting type 5 acausals, type 2 conceptual manipulation works.

 

[Wokistan]

You can't really just say something like that with no further elaboration and expect it to be considered.

 

[Kaltias]

So Lavos can't pull timeline dupes because it's type 3 uh

 

[RotofBots]

Ok, from what I gathered, Higher-D hax/AP and Type 2 Conceptual Manipulation can bypass it?

This should most likely be added to the Acausality type 5 section to avoid future confusion.

 

[The_Causality]

I don't think it exists. I don't think most types of acausality exist except for type 1. Everything else is just type 2 or not acausality at all.

Type 5 is by definition the best description of acausality

 

[Wokistan]

As for affecting type 5 acausals, type 2 conceptual manipulation works.

Not really sure why ypu're getting this. If someone is past being bound by cause and effect, why should they abide by the effect of having their concept messed with with no further feats on that level?

 

[Kaltias]

Mostly because a type 2 concept transcends stuff in a similar way

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Type 2 concepts are transcendent of reality as they aren't bound by the objects. Thus they would also be above the laws of reality as well.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

You can't really just say something like that with no further elaboration and expect it to be considered.

Didn't really expect it to be considered. Just expressing my opinion. Only thing that really needed as many types as it has is conceptual manipulation (and even that got pretentious). Things were easier and simpler before.

 

[DMB_1]

I don't think it exists. I don't think most types of acausality exist except for type 1. Everything else is just type 2 or not acausality at all.

>Profile states how those types of acausality work, and lists examples of them in fiction

>One of them is Lavos, a character you should be familiar with.

>There has been a previous CTR about them

Cal, you are going to need more than just "Meh, I don't think those are legit tbh".

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

@DMB. Look above, man.

 

[DMB_1]

You mean that you think so because it's just your opinion?

That doesn't really help if you don't explain why that's your opinion.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

If I wanted to convince people, sure. But I'm not trying to.

 

[Antoniofer]

I personally think that: type 5 is the same as type 4 but reserved to 1-A; that type 3 do not sounds exactly as Acausality; and that one do not need to be a singularity in time to be type 2 (but it has it benefics)

 

[Kaltias]

I'm not exactly sure where you are getting all of this?

 

[FateAlbane]

So Lavos can't pull timeline dupes because it's type 3 uh

It's hilarious because by the time Cross happened Lavos was literally weaponizing Acausality. As in, people who tried to interact with him or the FF outside of the main cast only managed to get removed from the causality of time as a whole as well, too. lol You can literally see their ethereal forms wandering around but unable to interact with anything, late game.

 

[Antoniofer]

I'm not exactly sure where you are getting all of this?

Welp, the first one is just a misunderstood and may be since I don't remember the current description of both types; type 3 is a variation of Nigh-Omnipresence, so I do not relate it to Acausality; and the last one weren't an issue until someone (I think it was Nedge) said that someone has to be a temporal singularity to qualify as type 2.

 

[FateAlbane]

Not really sure why ypu're getting this. If someone is past being bound by cause and effect, why should they abide by the effect of having their concept messed with with no further feats on that level?

But wouldn't a good enough Conceptual manip be capable of affecting directly what makes them Acausal/whatever meta-rules beyond the conventional systems of causality that they're functioning under in the first place?

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

I personally think that: type 5 is the same as type 4 but reserved to 1-A; that type 3 do not sounds exactly as Acausality; and that one do not need to be a singularity in time to be type 2 (but it has it benefics)

Temporal permanence is acausality because if you kill that character in only one point in time, it does nothing.

 

[Wokistan]

Unless the acausality has a specific source idk what you mean fate.

The act of, say, shooting some sort of beam, having it hit something, and it getting deleted conceptually with type 2 is still inextricably tied to cycles of cause and effect. Why would a type 5 be forced to let shoot lead to hit, or let hit lead to effect?

 

[Kaltias]

The problem is how you do it in that case.

If you can simply think and remove a concept, it isn't "from this point onward this won't exist".

It's "this never existed to begin with and will never be allowed to exist"

 

[Wokistan]

Not all conceptual erasure is retroactive, though.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Type 5 acausality is impossible not to be contradicted in fiction. It's impossible to be properly portrayed unless said character only exists in speaking. The instant they acknowledge someone is there, it's contradicted.

That's why I don't think it exists.

 

[FateAlbane]

@Wokistan Say someone has been shown to not bound by the systems of causality to a certain level. Then say the Conceptual manipulation has been shown to affect things equally as transcendent to the laws of causality or fundaments that can be seen as equally or more abstract than the being removed from Causality with type 5.

Then they're not affecting "conventional systems of cause and effect". They're directly messing with the very notions of their opponents not being affected in a level beyond causality, themselves. Think of it like a "no u" Conceptual Manip that is complex enough to be as above "the system of causality" as the being itself.

 

[Kaltias]

Not all conceptual erasure is retroactive, though.

If it doesn't work that way, it can't really be type 2 though

 

[PaChi2]

Not all conceptual erasure is retroactive, though.

Concepts type 2 are beyond "retroactive".