When should creator entities gain all of their creations' abilities?

[Antvasima]

So what are the conclusions here so far?

Something like the idea itself is acceptable but the actually giving someone all the powers in the verse would require a personalized CRT.

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @GyroNutz @Duedate8898 @Moritzva @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @Zaratthustra @Planck69 @LordGriffin1000 @Psychomaster35 @DarkDragonMedeus @Theglassman12

Do we currently need to do anything here, or did we finish this discussion in another thread?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @GyroNutz @Duedate8898 @Moritzva @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @Zaratthustra @Planck69 @LordGriffin1000 @Psychomaster35 @DarkDragonMedeus @Theglassman12

Do we currently need to do anything here, or did we finish this discussion in another thread?

I don't think so, it seems that everyone agrees that this is a case by case basis and if someone wants to give a character all powers from their verse, they'd need better evidence than what was provided in the OP.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Same, I think it is generally agreed case by case.

 

[Zaratthustra]

Case by case which need a good statement/information why it should have all the powers.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the replies. Should we mention that conclusion in our Editing Rules, or have we already done so previously?

 

[GyroNutz]

It doesn't appear to be there already. Case by case is usually the default though, so I don't think it's that important to add really

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. We would avoid future repeated arguments if we note down something official though, even if it is brief.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Basically, we don't assume the creation of a character or artifact suddenly assumes the creator is above everything they created if there is 0 mentions of anything. Especially if they're surprised by how potent their creation is, or if they're able to great wishes that the creator cannot, or if characters have powers that the creator never expected them to have.

But if a purpose of some artifact is literally to "Bestow a small fraction of the creator god's power", I would put that as an examples. Such as the thing Celestia and Luna gave to Twilight before Twilight mastered moving the sun and moon with her own power. I also generally tend to believe if the "Creator of everything" is also stated to be the "Embodiment of all creation" and is pretty much portrayed as the literal god tier of the verse second to none and has like 0 anti-feats. Those are especial examples who upscale from creations. Also, I recall Kefka Palazzo being the literal god of all magic being his justification for why he upscales from his creations and other magicites was a reason why he upscales from various characters and has basically all in game magic being canon.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so should we add some official guidelines regarding this issue to our wiki or not?

 

[Sniper670]

BUMP

 

[Antvasima]

It seems that everyone agrees that this is a case by case basis and if someone wants to give a character all powers from their verse, they'd need better evidence than what was provided in the OP.

Okay. Thank you for the replies. Should we mention that conclusion in our Editing Rules, or have we already done so previously?

It doesn't appear to be there already. Case by case is usually the default though, so I don't think it's that important to add really

Okay. We would avoid future repeated arguments if we note down something official though, even if it is brief.

Basically, we don't assume the creation of a character or artifact suddenly assumes the creator is above everything they created if there is 0 mentions of anything. Especially if they're surprised by how potent their creation is, or if they're able to great wishes that the creator cannot, or if characters have powers that the creator never expected them to have.

But if a purpose of some artifact is literally to "Bestow a small fraction of the creator god's power", I would put that as an examples. Such as the thing Celestia and Luna gave to Twilight before Twilight mastered moving the sun and moon with her own power. I also generally tend to believe if the "Creator of everything" is also stated to be the "Embodiment of all creation" and is pretty much portrayed as the literal god tier of the verse second to none and has like 0 anti-feats. Those are especial examples who upscale from creations. Also, I recall Kefka Palazzo being the literal god of all magic being his justification for why he upscales from his creations and other magicites was a reason why he upscales from various characters and has basically all in game magic being canon.

Okay, so should we add some official guidelines regarding this issue to our wiki or not?

@DarkDragonMedeus @GyroNutz @Zaratthustra @LordGriffin1000 @Qawsedf234 @DontTalkDT @Matthew_Schroeder @Duedate8898 @Moritzva @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @Planck69 @Psychomaster35 @Theglassman12

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Since this might come up again, I guess a guideline regarding what is and what isn't acceptable evidence for characters to have all powers/abilities in verse is fine. Maybe something like...

When attempting to give a character (mainly creator entites) all powers and abilities from their respective verse, one needs to provide clear evidence such as statements and or feats that prove or supports said claim. For examples on what is acceptable evidence and what isn't, please read the following examples below...

Not Acceptable:

1. The character in question being stated to be "Omnipotent" or "can do anything" are not acceptable evidence, as they are more likely then not hyperbole.

2. The character in question writing the plot of the story is not acceptable evidence, since without futher evidence it is unknown if the character can grant themselves the ability and would be subjected to NLF (No Limits Fallacy).

3. The character in question having a hand in creating other entities or bestowing powers upon them is not acceptable evidence, since creations tend to either be created with a specific biology or function that the creator can't or has not shown capable of replicating on themselves.

Acceptable:

1. The character in question being stated by a reliable/knowledgeable source or shown to have access to all powers and abilities of the verse is considered acceptable evidence.

2. The character in question being the embodiment of all existence which is shown to include the other characters from the verse and their abilities is considered acceptable evidence.

3. The character in question's power being the direct source of all the powers and having demonstrated some extent of usage of the abilities of all the other characters.

It should be noted that the above examples only act as guidelines and just because a character falls into one of these examples does not mean they outright qualify for having all the powers of their verse. It is heavily suggested that before applying something like this, the user creates a Content Revision Thread in order for the evidence to be properly evaluated to avoid unnecessary issues. Finally, we understand that it is unlikely that a character will desplay all of the other abilities in the verse but if one can provide evidence that shows them utilizing multiple abilities of other characters it can be used as supporting evidence when combined with other supporting evidence.


This is just a small draft, you guys can modify it, add or remove examples, and improve on it as you see fit. I not one to create drafts like these so please excuse any grammer issue or poor examples.

 

[Damage3245]

3. The character in question's power being the direct source of all the powers and abilities of all the other characters.

I think this should be expanded on a little bit in regards to just being a "source". A character can bestow a power on another character without being able to use it themselves. It should be "being the direct source of all powers" and "have demonstrated some extent of usage of the abilities".

Though the next paragraph may cover this just fine.

 

[Everything12]

Since this might come up again, I guess a guideline regarding what is and what isn't acceptable evidence for characters to have all powers/abilities in verse is fine. Maybe something like...

When attempting to give a character (mainly creator entites) all powers and abilities from their respective verse, one needs to provide clear evidence such as statements and or feats that prove or supports said claim. For examples on what is acceptable evidence and what isn't, please read the following examples below...

Not Acceptable:

1. The character in question being stated to be "Omnipotent" or "can do anything" are not acceptable evidence, as they are more likely then not hyperbole.

2. The character in question writing the plot of the story is not acceptable evidence, since without futher evidence it is unknown if the character can grant themselves the ability and would be subjected to NLF (No Limits Fallacy).

3. The character in question having a hand in creating other entities is not acceptable evidence, since creations tend to either be created with a specific biology or function that the creator can't or has not shown capable of replicating on themselves.

Acceptable:

1. The character in question being stated by a reliable/knowledgeable source or shown to have access to all powers and abilities of the verse is considered acceptable evidence.

2. The character in question being the embodiment of all existence which is shown to include the other characters from the verse and their abilities is considered acceptable evidence.

3. The character in question's power being the direct source of all the powers and abilities of all the other characters.

It should be noted that the above examples only act as guidelines and just because a character falls into one of these examples does not mean they outright qualify for having all the powers of their verse. It is heavily suggested that before applying something like this, the user creates a Content Revision Thread in order for the evidence to be properly evaluated to avoid unnecessary issues. Finally, we understand that it is unlikely that a character will desplay all of the other abilities in the verse but if one can provide evidence that shows them utilizing multiple abilities of other characters it can be used as supporting evidence when combined with other supporting evidence.


This is just a small draft, you guys can modify it, add or remove examples, and improve on it as you see fit. I not one to create drafts like these so please excuse any grammer issue or poor examples.

Seems fine, but I would prefer Damage's suggestion being added to acceptable point three.

I'd even prefer a fourth point being added to unacceptable that says that simply bestowing others powers alone is not suitable evidence, though perhaps point three of unacceptable could be altered to state it instead?

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out. However, there will likely be serious problems trying to fit a very elaborate text into our Editing Rules page. Is there some "Creator Entities" category page that we can place the new instruction text in instead, or would the "Supreme Beings" category work?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I think this should be expanded on a little bit in regards to just being a "source". A character can bestow a power on another character without being able to use it themselves. It should be "being the direct source of all powers" and "have demonstrated some extent of usage of the abilities".

Though the next paragraph may cover this just fine.

I've added it.

Seems fine, but I would prefer Damage's suggestion being added to acceptable point three.

I'd even prefer a fourth point being added to unacceptable that says that simply bestowing others powers alone is not suitable evidence, though perhaps point three of unacceptable could be altered to state it instead?

I've updated the third point to fit that in.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Thank you for helping out. However, there will likely be serious problems trying to fit a very elaborate text into our Editing Rules page. Is there some "Creator Entities" category page that we can place the new instruction text in instead, or would the "Supreme Beings" category work?

The supreme beings catagory might work but I'll wait to hear what others think.

 

[Everything12]

Power Bestowal or Omnipresence are probably pages that would be viewed more then those.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose so, but the text would likely seem very out of place/context there.

 

[Bobsican]

TBH this'd be better getting its own page.

 

[Antvasima]

Possibly, but what should we call it in that case?

 

[Bobsican]

"Power Inheritance Standards", perhaps?
Alternatively we could go even broader and do a "Powers and Abilities Standards" page that also covers other semantics, which isn't a bad idea given that the Editing Rules already tackle topics on that area, and so such stuff could be moved there for organization purposes.

 

[Everything12]

Well I find that user tend to call character's with all or most power in a verse as composite character's, so Compositing Powers Standard or something like that?

 

[Antvasima]

I am honestly not sure what is the best approach here, so I would appreciate further staff input.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

An added guideline seems alright.

 

[Reiner04]

If a character consistently has been portrayed as arsenal, has been stated to be capable of doing "anything" and has been treated as the god in the verse then that said character can be assumed to have the power of their creations (if not a machine or whatever) if not all the powers that exists in the verse, obviously there are few cases where creations themselves has surpassed their creaters but that's not something we should consider as default case, not when it hasn't been implied within given verse.

In this particular case assuming that this said character will not have power of their creations will be way bigger assumption than to say he will have. In this way it won't lead to NLF.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out. However, there will likely be serious problems trying to fit a very elaborate text into our Editing Rules page. Is there some "Creator Entities" category page that we can place the new instruction text in instead, or would the "Supreme Beings" category work?

The supreme beings catagory might work but I'll wait to hear what others think.

Power Bestowal or Omnipresence are probably pages that would be viewed more then those.

I suppose so, but the text would likely seem very out of place/context there.

TBH this'd be better getting its own page.

Possibly, but what should we call it in that case?

"Power Inheritance Standards", perhaps?
Alternatively we could go even broader and do a "Powers and Abilities Standards" page that also covers other semantics, which isn't a bad idea given that the Editing Rules already tackle topics on that area, and so such stuff could be moved there for organization purposes.

Well I find that user tend to call character's with all or most power in a verse as composite character's, so Compositing Powers Standard or something like that?

I am honestly not sure what is the best approach here, so I would appreciate further staff input.

An added guideline seems alright.

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about this?

 

[Sniper670]

BUMP

 

[Antvasima]

We probably have to wait until DontTalk gets more free time available from his schoolwork.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the conclusions here so far?

 

[Ped2018]

What are the conclusions here so far?

I think DT just needs to give his ok to the draft to be applied, and also decide the name of the page.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the conclusions here so far?

I think DT just needs to give his ok to the draft to be applied, and also decide the name of the page.

Thank you for your reply.

@DontTalkDT

Are you willing to help out here please?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Agnaa]

Out of all the bad options so far, I like Bob's best.

"Power Inheritance Standards", perhaps?
Alternatively we could go even broader and do a "Powers and Abilities Standards" page that also covers other semantics, which isn't a bad idea given that the Editing Rules already tackle topics on that area, and so such stuff could be moved there for organization purposes.

I agree with the draft as LordGriffin wrote it.

But maybe it's also worth saying that such a thing can happen on a smaller scale? I know a verse that reliably meets the standard through #1, but doesn't scale to all powers in the verse, just all the powers of supernatural beings in a single town.

 

[Antvasima]

Since this might come up again, I guess a guideline regarding what is and what isn't acceptable evidence for characters to have all powers/abilities in verse is fine. Maybe something like...

When attempting to give a character (mainly creator entites) all powers and abilities from their respective verse, one needs to provide clear evidence such as statements and or feats that prove or supports said claim. For examples on what is acceptable evidence and what isn't, please read the following examples below...

Not Acceptable:

1. The character in question being stated to be "Omnipotent" or "can do anything" are not acceptable evidence, as they are more likely then not hyperbole.

2. The character in question writing the plot of the story is not acceptable evidence, since without futher evidence it is unknown if the character can grant themselves the ability and would be subjected to NLF (No Limits Fallacy).

3. The character in question having a hand in creating other entities or bestowing powers upon them is not acceptable evidence, since creations tend to either be created with a specific biology or function that the creator can't or has not shown capable of replicating on themselves.

Acceptable:

1. The character in question being stated by a reliable/knowledgeable source or shown to have access to all powers and abilities of the verse is considered acceptable evidence.

2. The character in question being the embodiment of all existence which is shown to include the other characters from the verse and their abilities is considered acceptable evidence.

3. The character in question's power being the direct source of all the powers and having demonstrated some extent of usage of the abilities of all the other characters.

It should be noted that the above examples only act as guidelines and just because a character falls into one of these examples does not mean they outright qualify for having all the powers of their verse. It is heavily suggested that before applying something like this, the user creates a Content Revision Thread in order for the evidence to be properly evaluated to avoid unnecessary issues. Finally, we understand that it is unlikely that a character will desplay all of the other abilities in the verse but if one can provide evidence that shows them utilizing multiple abilities of other characters it can be used as supporting evidence when combined with other supporting evidence.


This is just a small draft, you guys can modify it, add or remove examples, and improve on it as you see fit. I not one to create drafts like these so please excuse any grammer issue or poor examples.

"Power Inheritance Standards", perhaps?
Alternatively we could go even broader and do a "Powers and Abilities Standards" page that also covers other semantics, which isn't a bad idea given that the Editing Rules already tackle topics on that area, and so such stuff could be moved there for organization purposes.

Out of all the bad options so far, I like Bob's best.

I agree with the draft as LordGriffin wrote it.

But maybe it's also worth saying that such a thing can happen on a smaller scale? I know a verse that reliably meets the standard through #1, but doesn't scale to all powers in the verse, just all the powers of supernatural beings in a single town.

So a "Powers and Abilities Standards" page, that, for a start, contains Griffin's draft above then?

What other information should it contain though?

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, maybe we could bundle the Hax page into it, and redirect there?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that our Hax page seems better to keep on its own.

If we have no additional relevant information, perhaps a "Power Inheritance Standards" page would be a less bad option, although the title might be improved.

 

[Agnaa]

The stuff I'm about to suggest for the thread on defining/removing smurf hax sounds like it's getting into more of a guideline on how abilities function in general, not just ones that bypass durability as our Hax page says it covered, so I thought that might fit.

But it could probably still be bundled into the Hax page.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, keeping that information in our Hax page seem like a better option.