Undertale & Durability Negation: Fact, or Fiction?

[Moritzva]

I was reading through this thread, and saw a comment about where Undertale's Soul Manipulation Potency and Resistance is coming from: The ATK and DEF stats.

Then I realized: in-game, you raise your DEF stats by wearing completely regular clothes.

...Where exactly did we get durability negation from, anyways?

The Argument
So, I believe that Undertale does not have durability negation, or if they do, it is incredibly poor.

For one, literally every time 'soul manipulation' is used, it affects the body (Sans' Gravity Manipulation tosses the body around, Undyne gives you a spear to defend your body with), and all damage taken is equal to both your body, and your soul.

We judge Soul Manipulation Resistance by the DEF stat, so it seems, and Potency by the ATK stat. Yet, here are the items that raise DEF in Undertale:




How odd. All of these are items that defend the physical body.

There seems to be a recurring theme. All instances of SOUL Manipulation in Undertale is, in fact, hurting or affecting the body, and all instances of resisting SOUL Manipulation comes from better protecting the body.

So Why Is It Durability Negation?
Currently, it is listed as Durability Negation because it affects the soul, and affecting the soul is assumed to negate durability. Not because of any statements, or any feats in-verse (with the exception of Sans, who is a completely different topic), only because it's assumed that it does.

And that's fair enough. Monster magic affects the soul, and in most fictional verses, that means you can circumvent bodily durability. But Undertale is an odd case. Never has there been evidence of the soul being hurt where the body shrugged off the blow. The body and soul are always in tandem, as one, leading me to believe...

What I Propose
No Undertale profiles should have Durability Negation with the exception of Sans, who does not have it because of Soul Manipulation, but because of various other effects in-game that ignore your DEF stat outright.

In the end, the evidence for Durability Negation is downright assumptions at best, while all Undertale feats and gameplay show only that the verse treats the soul and body similarly.

Yes, all monsters will keep their Soul Manipulation, but it will not be assumed to negate durability, when all evidence simply shows it damaging the soul while damaging the body. Effectively, they simply deal damage to the soul as they deal damage to the person themselves. This is how every feat of soul manipulation in Undertale is done in-verse. There is no durability negation, only damaging both the soul and the person's durability equally.

So, Undertale doesn't negate durability. It damages you the old fashioned way, and as it damages you, damages your soul equally. If an Undertale monster kills you, your soul dies too. That is all that ever happens in-lore, and that's all that should happen here.

 

[Agnaa]

This seems fair.

 

[DatOneWeeb]

I agree with all of this, their durability negation never made actual sense to me.

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah, this sounds good. Other option is that, in order to cause animic damage (not sure how does that apply here), one needs to cause conventional damage first, no physical damage would mean no animic damage.

 

[The_Wright_Way]

I mean, in all fairness, none of those things should really make much of a difference when defending against 9-A attacks. It can be assumed that they have some special properties at least.

Also, we only ever see Sans through around the Soul, not the body.

I'm nitpicking though. This looks mostly good, but I'll wait for arguments.

 

[Moritzva]

I mean, in all fairness, none of those things should really make much of a difference when defending against 9-A attacks. It can be assumed that they have some special properties at least.
Also, we only ever see Sans through around the Soul, not the body.

I'm nitpicking though. This looks mostly good, but I'll wait for arguments.

Temmie Armor does, though. The rest can be excused by game mechanics, but Temmie Armor is at least... armor, even if it's not what you'd imagine. You can assume it has special properties, but assuming that all Undertale clothing magically protects the soul seems like a bit of a stretch.

It's not unfair to assume that the soul also partially represents your physical body in a game mechanics sense, given that you shoot from it, and can jump around/abide by normal physics in it. So, fair point on the Sans thing, but I'm inclined to say that it also represents your physical form, due to jumping around and running like a human would.

 

[Theuser789]

Meh, neutral

 

[Moritzva]

Yeah, this sounds good. Other option is that, in order to cause animic damage (not sure how does that apply here), one needs to cause conventional damage first, no physical damage would mean no animic damage.

I imagine something like that. Undertale characters can damage their soul, but only if they can damage you. If your Temmie Armor is too strong, your soul won't be damaged that much, since your physical body is too well defended.

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

The whole thing is that soul attacks is based on determination. it even says things with items like the faded ribbon that it makes monsters want to kill you less.

 

[Moritzva]

The whole thing is that soul attacks is based on determination. it even says things with items like the faded ribbon that it makes monsters want to kill you less.

Faded Ribbon =/= literally wearing Temmie Armor.

Yes, some armor makes monsters wish to kill you less. Not all.

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

The whole thing is that soul attacks is based on determination. it even says things with items like the faded ribbon that it makes monsters want to kill you less.

Faded Ribbon =/= literally wearing Temmie Armor.
Yes, some armor makes monsters wish to kill you less. Not all.

It doesn't outright state it for every single piece, but it makes more sense to just say souls have durability in the undertale universe rather than just completely discounting it all.

 

[Moritzva]

It's more logical to say that wearing a suit of cat-made armor makes enemies want to kill you marginally less, than them simply protecting your physical body like armor should?

I'm not discounting that souls have durability. I'm only saying that attacks that harm the soul always need to hit the body, physically, first, and that defending your physical body defends your soul. So you're right: souls have durability in Undertale. I'm not denying this. I'm just denyting their capability to damage it well.

 

[Listentomyrhytm]

 

[Jackythejack]

I'll wait for other arguments first

 

[Buttersamuri]

Seems to make sense. Their soul dying along with them is something that falls under both human and monster, so can be explained as them killing frisk causing the effect of their souls being destroyed.

 

[Moritzva]

Bump. So far, most seem in favor.

 

[CinnabarManx421]

I'm also in agreement with this.

My dream match of lesbian fish with spear vs lesbian rock with spear is looking more unfair by the day ovo

 

[Moritzva]

Bump.

 

[Sadistic_Sleuth]

Seems fine.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Seems good.

 

[Dusty_Raider]

Seems good

 

[DatOneWeeb]

Currently there are no arguments against this.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

Sorry but I disagree, as the armor protects you only because of frisk's Relation or something like that, this is provin by the fact that the locket and the real knife had 99 Def and Atk to Genocide Frisk (a.k.a chara possessing Frisk) but had 14 Def and Atk when non Chara possessed Frisk had them, the reason why the locket and knife were stronger was because of Chara's relation to those Items,unlike Frisk who doesn't have that relation.

 

[Listentomyrhytm]

Dude, you posted the same thing twice when you could have edited.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

Dude, you posted the same thing twice when you could have edited.

Sorry.

 

[Moritzva]

Sorry but I disagree, as the armor protects you only because of frisk's Relation or something like that, this is provin by the fact that the locket and the real knife had 99 Def and Atk to Genocide Frisk (a.k.a chara possessing Frisk) but had 14 Def and Atk when non Chara possessed Frisk had them, the reason why the locket and knife were stronger was because of Chara's relation to those Items,unlike Frisk who doesn't have that relation.

Chara is an immensely supernatural entity that one-shot quite literally the entire game - I wouldn't judge all weapons off of the few that have connections to them. That's like judging all swords based off of the holy-blessed Excalibur.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

Well that's not the point,the point is that somehow,the same item, is 99 Def to Chara but 14 Def to Frisk, that means the Item itself isn't the one that gives the Def, but something else that has to do with their relation with said Item.

 

[ByAsura]

Don't needlessly quote walls of text.

 

[Moritzva]

Don't needlessly quote walls of text.

For a moment, I thought you were talking to me.

@Adem Or, potentially, the item is special due to it's connection with an extradimensional, timeline-shattering force that runs on the desire to murder people.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

Well Chara when it had the Locket was just a human child, like all the other human children, and when Frisk has it has less defense then when he has it when he's possessed by Chara.

 

[Moritzva]

Well Chara when it had the Locket was just a human child, like all the other human children, and when Frisk has it has less defense then when he has it when he's possessed by Chara.

Very likely because Chara is an immensely powerful entity and the item has strong connections to them.

So which entity gives Temmie Armor more defense if you're possessed by them?

 

[Theuser789]

Chara only became that after you kill Flowey, that is befire that even happens, the stats are stronger because of emotional conection, Chara even says "Right where it belongs"

 

[Moritzva]

Chara was always clearly more than just a regular human. This can be inferred from, well, Chara still being alive at all.

Using that item as evidence seems very weak and seems to definitely apply to a single item.

 

[Lord_JJJ]

I don't agree The armors in Underertale possesses magic that strengthens your soul

1 Temmie armor is a magical armor and not an ordinary armor, Temmie says this armor will make any battle much easier and you will not have any challenge, something strange to say Temmie if it was a normal armor and also the armor can healing you, something that an ordinary armor cannot do, and using magic In the armor industry it does not seem strange in Undertale. We have seen Undyne's armor increases her strength (her attack without the armor 41 while her attack with the armor is 50) and Metaton which has a very great durability because his body is made of metal and magic

2 If the weapons in Underertel really increase physical protection, does this mean that a hat that can protect your body better than a apron

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

Chara was a ghost or something, we don't know if this is special as Chara is the only human that lost it's soul.

well it's the Only Item that the player has a known relation with, so we can only use it.

 

[Moritzva]

Delving into the exact mechanics and effects delves into game mechanics. There is absolutely nothing that implies it magically protects the soul, or that there is durability negation in the first place.

In the end, it's up to those in favor of Durability Negation to show actual proof for Durability Negation, rather than assumptions. All arguments for it are just that - assumptions. Assumptions that all armor protects the soul, assumptions that the soul magic pierces durability, when actual evidence says otherwise.

 

[Theuser789]

Chara was always clearly more than just a regular human. This can be inferred from, well, Chara still being alive at all.

Using that item as evidence seems very weak and seems to definitely apply to a single item.

Chara survived because of Frisk's determimation and falling right were she was buried

Idc about the other arguments, I wanted to correct this

 

[The_Calaca]

Funnily enough, this seems correct.

Undertale can't catch a break, huh?

 

[Moritzva]

Chara was always clearly more than just a regular human. This can be inferred from, well, Chara still being alive at all.

Using that item as evidence seems very weak and seems to definitely apply to a single item.

Chara survived because of Frisk's determimation and falling right were she was buried
Idc about the other arguments, I wanted to correct this

I'm aware. I'm saying that Chara is cleary an exception and has a large amount of magic voodoo in regards to her connection to Frisk. So, it makes sense that the item would have unique effects regarding that connection. Other items, not so much.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

Did you forget Magic Damaging the Mad Dummi, who is immune to physical hits?