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

[DontTalkDT]

This came up in a thread and, since the conclusion has wide-reaching implications for many verses, I decided to make a staff debate about it. I will not name the thread in question and hope others won't either, as this isn't just supposed to become a CRT for that verse.

The question I wish to debate is to which degree we wish to consider the following reasoning valid: Some characters with creation abilities has created a number of other beings. These other beings have powers and abilities. Since the character has created them, it should be able to use all of their abilities even without their assistance.


I believe we have agreed once in the past that this argument in itself doesn't validate upgrades.
For good reasons. There are enough examples of creators being defeated by their creations and lots of gods that have not remotely shown any indication of having such a large ability pool.
In general, this is as extraordinary of a claim as it comes, given that we usually talk about adding a dozen abilities the character never demonstrated. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In general, one might say that the connection between a creation's ability and the creator's ability is flimsy at best. I am able to build a machine capable of doing things that I myself can't do. Cases like that are essentially just the supernatural equivalent of thet.
More in fantasy terms one could compare it to how a child that inherited its mother's elemental mana affinities, could learn an elemental spell that the mother wasn't capable of.

However, if don't just want to talk about the argument in isolation, but also if it can be counted as supporting evidence. And, if yes, how much does it count?
Many creators can deliver some additional arguments to back up the stance further.

Let me list three examples from the top of my head (without mentioning the characters, cause... well, as said, don't want this to become some verses CRT):

1. What if the creator additionally has statements of "omnipotence", being able to do anything, having all possibilities or similar statements? All of those are NLFs but they could be considered additional support to the idea of being able to do all that the creations can.
2. What if a creator is writing the plot of the verse, so that it's essentially writing the plot for every time any other being uses its power? Would we infer that it can also write itself to have all those powers? Would that include things like Regeneration, AE or NEP?
3. What if the creator had its hands in creating the entities at an abstract level and actively encoded the abilities in them? I.e. not just creating a magician, but also giving it a talent for a certain spell?

Personally, I would consider all of these arguments and others of their nature not sufficient to be applied. Power Bestowal on others is different of bestowing yourself powers. And the consequences are too vast to operate on such assumptions.
If a creator wants to have the abilities of their creations, they need evidence for that which stands entirely on its own. Being the creator of a set of beings should not be considered even supporting evidence, much less strong supporting evidence. At least in my opinion.

What do you think, everyone?

Note: Staff (and former staff) only. Yes, I will delete posts.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It should definitely not be the default that they have all the powers of what they created unless there's other in depth lore such as being a literal embodiment of everything they also created. Or more specifically if they're the literal source of a cosmic UES for example, I could see those being exceptions.

 

[Theglassman12]

Omnipotence as a whole is a can of worms, since that could just mean the being is the most powerful in their respective series as opposed to it automatically has every single power ever shown in the series. If they elaborate the omnipotence as having everything its creation has then sure, if not then I don't know if that would be allowed.

I feel like rewriting the plot granting the characters extra abilities could lead to some NLF in the same way that having reality warping somehow means you have access to every single ability that's listed on the page. So again this would require some more context like "they can write in new abilities they can use on the fly" or some shit.

This might have some leniency. For one example, Castlevania has a being named Chaos, it's the source of all the monsters in the franchise and the thing that allows Dracula to become the dark lord that he is. Also helps that one of Dracula's main powers is the power of dominance, which allows him to have access to every creature of chaos' abilities at will, hence his high status in the series. If this being has anything like this then I can see the abilities cross scaling from the normal beings to the creator itself.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It should definitely not be the default that they have all the powers of what they created unless there's other in depth lore such as being a literal embodiment of everything they also created.

Would that include omnipresent characters or which level of embodiment would be required?

Or more specifically if they're the literal source of a cosmic UES for example, I could see those being exceptions.

Hmmm... would that expand beyond the abilities the UES grants by default?

I, for example, know a character that is the source of the concept of magic (well, more or less) and creator of the world. While I would agree that they can generally use magic, I'm sceptical to say that they can use every spell any magician in history ever cast.

I also know a character that is the source of all mana in existence. I would similarly argue that they probably have the qualities every mage share, but not necessarily can use all spells.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

What if the creator additionally has statements of "omnipotence", being able to do anything, having all possibilities or similar statements? All of those are NLFs but they could be considered additional support to the idea of being able to do all that the creations can.

I can agree that a creator being called "omnipotent" and being stated "can do anything" are not good supporting evidence. Only when the creator actually starts using multiple characters unique powers and abilities that shouldn't be possible should we even consider these as supporting evidence.

Example: A creator gets into a fight with multiple individuals who had unique abilities and states "you think you can stop me those abilities? I can do anything!" and then starts replicating the characters abilities perfectly then I can likely be assumed they have them because it's being backed by showings. However, without any showings, I hard disagree with such statements being used.

What if a creator is writing the plot of the verse, so that it's essentially writing the plot for every time any other being uses its power? Would we infer that it can also write itself to have all those powers? Would that include things like Regeneration, AE or NEP?

In a way, yes. An example would be a character I know, Beiloune from Okage: Shadow King. Beiloune uses Classification and classifies how all the events in his stories will go, classifying everyone with specific knowledge, powers, abilities, personality, what they will see when they look at something and how they'll react to seeing it or a situation. He is even shown capable of using Classification on himself so their should be no reason we assume can't write himself with those abilities.

Now, if the creator writing the plot and giving everyone their abilities isn't show capable of doing ut to themselves or is unbound by the plot they are writing, it shouldn't be assumed they can give themselves those abilities without something concrete backing it.

What if the creator had its hands in creating the entities at an abstract level and actively encoded the abilities in them? I.e. not just creating a magician, but also giving it a talent for a certain spell?

Simply creating another entity and giving it abilities and the knowledge to use said ability doesn't mean the creator has it, because I know lesser beings who can do this but don't have those abilities themselves. However, I think this could be used if it's directly from their power that they have access to in some way then it can be believable that they have the abilities themselves but that's just my opinion.

 

[Psychomaster35]

I’ve been thinking that a creator would only get the abilities of their creations if they either through specific statements of giving everyone their abilities, or they have never been shown to be defeated within their verses (Even to the point of stomping their creations).

 

[Planck69]

Regarding the examples.

1. A statement of omnipotence, all possibilities etc. on its own doesn't seem like enough supporting evidence to the claim that a character has all abilities in a series, since many a time this can just mean blanket reality warping + being the most powerful being in the series. If he starts demonstrating a variety of powers that are in use by the rest of the cast then perhaps it could be usable as support I think. But only that.

2. This seems like quite a bit of a leap as like said above, the same can be said for reality warpers that stand above their settings or even law users of a similar nature. That and it seems somewhat of a flimsy premise imo.

3. This isn't really indicative of having such all powers as those can be granted without having them, regardless of how thorough one is with the whole thing.

So yeah, I agree that just being a creator isn't good supporting evidence for having all powers of one's creations, unless it comes bundled with self-evident proof. An example I can think of would be Allheaven, a character from Ergenverse, who's the creator of all life within a realm and is stated and shown to be capable of accessing the "memories of the cosmos" and thus all abilities within it.

 

[Agnaa]

I think none of those arguments in the OP are sufficient. There needs to be a specific statement of having all those powers, or a very strong logical throughline backed up by feats (i.e. Fukurou Tsurubami invented Styles, taught them to other people, and demonstrated 6 of them himself, so we give him all of the Styles that his proteges have).

Hmmm... would that expand beyond the abilities the UES grants by default?

I, for example, know a character that is the source of the concept of magic (well, more or less) and creator of the world. While I would agree that they can generally use magic, I'm sceptical to say that they can use every spell any magician in history ever cast.

I also know a character that is the source of all mana in existence. I would similarly argue that they probably have the qualities every mage share, but not necessarily can use all spells.

If they're the source and have statements/demonstrations of using various people's abilities (basically, be Scion (Worm)) then I'd say they have all abilities. If they're just the source of magic, and don't have feats of using spells that were supposedly unique to certain other characters, I'd say they don't.

In a way, yes. An example would be a character I know, Beiloune from Okage: Shadow King. Beiloune uses Classification and classifies how all the events in his stories will go, classifying everyone with specific knowledge, powers, abilities, personality, what they will see when they look at something and how they'll react to seeing it or a situation. He is even shown capable of using Classification on himself so their should be no reason we assume can't write himself with those abilities.

I'd be fine with some second-order stuff with good reasoning like this, where they don't start with it but are able to add it.

 

[Zaratthustra]

Only if its stated or shown to be able to use the powers of the entire series would be okay.

Just being a source of a concept, energy, etc doesn't grant much as its too vague. X could be the source of electricity, sure we put electricity manipulation but nothing more if not shown/stated...we don't grant them for example, Underwater Breathing by controling electricity to create the phenomena of 'electrolysis of water' if Y character has shown it. Its all based on context.

 

[Agnaa]

Firstly, you are not providing an example as others were. Everyone else gave answers to the OP, and used the examples as, well, examples of what they were saying.

You just came in here saying "What would we do with Arceus?" and started arguing about it.

Secondly, this is a staff only thread and, as far as I can tell, no staff member gave you permission to participate.

 

[Zaratthustra]

@Yemma670 This is a general thread about if Creators should get their verse powers and how we should proceed. Its not a Pokemon or Arceus thread so stop debating him. From what I know there is already a thread on this character and its powers. If you wish to continue then go there and debate.

 

[Agnaa]

Responded on your wall since this is derailing. This thread is not a Pokemon CRT.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Generally speaking, my opinion is that creating or bestowing power to a given entity doesn't, on its own, mean you have access to their abilities, no. I think the "we can put together machines that are capable of things we aren't" argument is a bit of a weird equivalency to try to make, but then you can easily rephrase it to make a clearer point, anyway: Creating a laser gun ex nihilo does not, for instance, necessarily mean you have the power to throw around lasers yourself, and if someone creates a universe, we wouldn't give them every power we could attribute to every object in said universe (Like a black hole, for example). I think that probably shouldn't be considered as evidence for anything, not even of the supporting kind.

I believe one of the more straightforward examples of something that would, in fact, qualify for ability scaling is, say, if some entity is actually just a part of you, or something similar to that. Glass already gave the example of Chaos, from Castlevania, but on the whole I think that should be a no-brainer in any case. Just putting this here for transparency's sake.

I'm particularly interested in this example, though:

What if a creator is writing the plot of the verse, so that it's essentially writing the plot for every time any other being uses its power? Would we infer that it can also write itself to have all those powers? Would that include things like Regeneration, AE or NEP?

As I see it, if you actively write and direct the whole plot of some level of existence (As, say, an author character), then you are responsible for manually putting in place all of the events taking place in it, and as such, the feats of all of the characters involved count as feats done by as you, as well. It naturally follows that, if I can write "And then he threw a fireball," I can also write "And then a fireball came out of nowhere." The character who threw the fireball is really just a vehicle for my intent, and not some necessary tool I need to make use of to talk about fireballs in the story.

Although nevertheless I wouldn't index this by slapping every power in the verse into the profile. I'd just leave it implicit that the character feasibly can replicate all of the abilities of their lessers through Plot Manipulation.

You could extend this logic to non-author characters, as well. In general, it applies if an entity is actively responsible for each and every single phenomena that occurs in the verse. Although I wouldn't say that they'd be able to grant existential abilities (Example: Abstract Existence or Nonexistent Physiology) to themselves, they'd only get the ability to manipulate these things, if characters that have them fall under their purview.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Whew, just got up. Deleted all the non-staff posts as I said I would.

 

[Everything12]

Simply being the source of all energy that is used to perform techniques in a verse doesn't automatically you can use those techniques yourself. As it could be a case of them lacking knowledge and experience others have of using the energy to perform the technique, even if they are extremely skilled with and knowledgeable on the energy source themselves.

As for the three points in the opening, I have to echo what everyone else is saying. Omnipotence is vague, using Plot Manipulation to replicate the affect of or recreating a technique is not performing the technique yourself, creating a being with the innate ability to use a technique is the same as the Plot Manipulation regardless of how abstract it is.

Even a character that directly grants other characters certain abilities is iffy and requires more context, as I've read quite a few series where a character can't use the abilities they give others because of the nature of the character they give the ability to being an important factor in gaining the ability.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Damage3245 @JustSomeWeirdo @Crabwhale @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Maverick_Zero_X @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @EliminatorVenom

What do you think about this?

 

[Qawsedf234]

In my view a creator can gain all abilities if they fit some criteria like:

• Being demonstrably superior to the entire verse so we don't have a case of creation > creator (Chakravartian from Asura's Wraith)
• Is shown to be the active source of all power in the franchise and has shown the ability to use some of those powers or has some form of Omnipresence that leads them to be part of everything (The Presence from DC or TOAA for example)
• A direct statement

Reality > Fiction interaction makes meta sense to me but there's also just clear examples of characters not using abilites of people below them even of that would be helpful.

So maybe a possibly rating? But it 100% should not be a confirmed thing in my view.

 

[Damage3245]

Qawsedf234's points seem fine to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who are helping out here.

I will go on a vacation until September 7, so you will likely have to handle this without me though.

 

[DontTalkDT]

In my view a creator can gain all abilities if they fit some criteria like:

• Being demonstrably superior to the entire verse so we don't have a case of creation > creator

Just being more powerful seems way too vague IMO. That seems more like a requirement than evidence to support sharing all abilities with creations.

• has some form of Omnipresence that leads them to be part of everything

Feel like that's a little too vague. Like, if they can take control of all their creations due to being part of them they can have the creations just use the technique in their stead. That much seems fine.

But I think saying that the being as a whole has the regeneration if it just is a vaguely omnipresent part of some being that has, seems too speculative. E.g. a being omnipresent on Earth doesn't necessary have the regeneration of Sea Stars on parts of it that aren't the Sea Stars IMO.

As I see it, if you actively write and direct the whole plot of some level of existence (As, say, an author character), then you are responsible for manually putting in place all of the events taking place in it, and as such, the feats of all of the characters involved count as feats done by as you, as well. It naturally follows that, if I can write "And then he threw a fireball," I can also write "And then a fireball came out of nowhere." The character who threw the fireball is really just a vehicle for my intent, and not some necessary tool I need to make use of to talk about fireballs in the story.

Although nevertheless I wouldn't index this by slapping every power in the verse into the profile. I'd just leave it implicit that the character feasibly can replicate all of the abilities of their lessers through Plot Manipulation.

You could extend this logic to non-author characters, as well. In general, it applies if an entity is actively responsible for each and every single phenomena that occurs in the verse. Although I wouldn't say that they'd be able to grant existential abilities (Example: Abstract Existence or Nonexistent Physiology) to themselves, they'd only get the ability to manipulate these things, if characters that have them fall under their purview.

I could agree with that with a bit of an asterisk. That should only apply to external active powers, not passives or physiology type of things.

E.g. Mid-Godly regeneration requires you to be able to restore yourself after erasure. Being able to be involved in that for another entity is much different to using ones Plot Manipulation after already being erased to make it happen for yourself.
Or take Nonexistent Physiology. Being able to write an entity that is nonexistent doesn't mean you can survive erasing yourself from existence as well, no?

 

[Qawsedf234]

That seems more like a requirement than evidence to support sharing all abilities with creations.

That's what I was getting at. That they need to fit multiple criteria to qualify rather than just a single thing.

But I think saying that the being as a whole has the regeneration if it just is a vaguely omnipresent part of some being that has, seems too speculative. E.g. a being omnipresent on Earth doesn't necessary have the regeneration of Sea Stars on parts of it that aren't the Sea Stars IMO.

As mentioned it would only be for full omnipresence or connection. Like how TOAA is part of every Marvel character or how creation is an aspect of the Presence/God in DC.

Limited omnipresence or realm omnipresence wouldn't count imo. They would need to be part or connected to every character for that justification to count.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I think it depends on the context, like if someone created a person and that person later learned a specific ability via external sources, then obviously the creator should not have the ability, but if someone created a person and gave them a specific power, then the creator should always have the ability to give himself that same power, however the context of how the creation happened

 

[Damage3245]

but if someone created a person and gave them a specific power, then the creator should always have the ability to give himself that same power, however the context of how the creation happened

Shouldn't it need to be proved that the creator is capable of bestowing powers on themselves in the first place?

 

[Moritzva]

Context and case-by-case basis. That's all.

 

[Duedate8898]

Not sure why this is a staff thread. But what Moritzva said really. If I were to add anything to that, it would just be do the same thing we do with all other characters, have either statements and/or feats showing them possessing these powers. That and be sure to give it proper scrutiny.

 

[DontTalkDT]

If I were to add anything to that, it would just be do the same thing we do with all other characters, have either statements and/or feats showing them possessing these powers.

I mean, this is about cases where we neither have a reliable statement that the creator has all powers of their creations nor feats of using all those powers.
So neither statements nor feats exist as such.
It's about whether we consider it valid to reason it from circumstances.

Context and case-by-case basis. That's all.

Would like a little more guideline than that, tbh, for circumstances that might make many characters incredible broken for having tons of abilities they have never shown to use.
Not strict air-tight rules necessarily, but at least a few general positions.
In my experience, if we don't set a guideline a guideline will implicitly establish itself over time due to the precedence cases and not necessarily in the most reasonable way.

That's what I was getting at. That they need to fit multiple criteria to qualify rather than just a single thing.

I see. So being a creator and being unbeaten alone would not suffice then, yes?

As mentioned it would only be for full omnipresence or connection. Like how TOAA is part of every Marvel character or how creation is an aspect of the Presence/God in DC.

Limited omnipresence or realm omnipresence wouldn't count imo. They would need to be part or connected to every character for that justification to count.

Still think it should be a little more restrictive. Like, say a character is omnipresent throughout a universe. For a character of that size Low-Mid regen would mean something like regenerating destroyed galactic clusters. Taking that from a Sea Star's ability to regenerate a limb seems kinda out there.

Like, I guess what I'm saying is that if a character has every being as part of them, they can use every being's ability, but possibly only through that being. I.e. they can use a sea stars regen but only on the sea star parts of themselves. Not necessarily on galaxies or elephants or other stuff that is also part of them.

I think it depends on the context, like if someone created a person and that person later learned a specific ability via external sources, then obviously the creator should not have the ability, but if someone created a person and gave them a specific power, then the creator should always have the ability to give himself that same power, however the context of how the creation happened

Have to disagree with this. In fact, our current standards on Power Bestowal say the opposite.

Note that just because a character can grant a power to another, does not mean that they can grant that same power to themselves. It must be stated that said ability can grant the user greater power as well.

And for a good reason. I'm fairly sure fiction has plenty of characters with the ability to grant others certain new abilities that they themselves don't have.

It also makes sense. It's one thing to give a bat echolocations, as it has the prerequisites for that, but another to give that ability to humanoid, who has not. It would be plausible for a humanoid creator to give that ability to others but not themselves. Been a while since I last thought of Heaven's Design Team.
Another more magical example would be a mage with life attribute affinity creating a creature with lightning affinity. The creature might be able to shoot lightning due to its affinity, but the life attribute mage itself doesn't have the right attribute affinity to accomplish such a feat.
One could take this example even further. A swordsman could via magic create a creature more talented in swordsplay than himself. And that creature might then be able to perform a swords technique, which the swordsman lacks the talent to ever master. Or the typical scientists that create a creature which is smarter than themselves.

 

[Duedate8898]

Simply put, as far as I see, if there aren't said to possess all these powers nor is there anything that directly implies it, such as them demonstrating several powers from other characters, then they shouldn't gain the powers of their creations. Whatever powers they demonstrate and are said to have are the powers they should get.

 

[Qawsedf234]

So being a creator and being unbeaten alone would not suffice then, yes?

In of itself no. It would just point that it could qualify.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I hate to throw the lazy "Case by case analysis" non-answer but this is really something which dramatically depends on the verse. We do need to analyze how the Creator created those other characters and what their relationship between them is. Like, if the Creator is some sort of omnipresent abstract being that sustains creation, or if the beings he creates are extensions or avatars of himself, or if they are the explicit source of the verse's power system than it is obviously fine.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Like, if the Creator is some sort of omnipresent abstract being that sustains creation

Don't think that alone suffices. If you embody a concept of the universe the requirements would be the case, but doing so means very little for your abilities.

or if the beings he creates are extensions or avatars of himself

I mean, sure. If we are talking avatars as in "they are bodies inhabited by them" then it's probably fine... although then all entities should also have the same abilities, logically speaking.

or if they are the explicit source of the verse's power system than it is obviously fine.

Actually, no. One can be the source of a power system in many different ways. Actually know examples against that.

Some power systems evolve to include newly invented skills or spells, where the creator does little more than classifying those. They can also be the source in terms of the power source, but not actually having invented each technique.

This would be fine for entities which have personally invented and "programmed in" all of the techniques, though.

Simply put, as far as I see, if there aren't said to possess all these powers nor is there anything that directly implies it, such as them demonstrating several powers from other characters, then they shouldn't gain the powers of their creations. Whatever powers they demonstrate and are said to have are the powers they should get.

I can agree with that.

Although "demonstrating several powers" should really be taken carefully. Every isekai protagonist shows dozens of powers of a power system, which obviously does not mean they have all.
It should be most powers, some of each branch and especially the most difficult/advanced uses. Like, demonstrating one level 1 spell of each element is too few if there are dozens of spells for each element IMO.

 

[GyroNutz]

I don't believe any of the arguments given in the OP would be sufficient, at least not without further context. Even then, saying that a character could give themselves one's powers does not mean that they have or would use it as part of their standard arsenal.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the conclusions here so far?

 

[Qawsedf234]

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

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems reasonable to me.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Didn't we talk about this subject in another recent revision thread as well? Also, what has been accepted to be applied here, and possibly there?

 

[Aachintya31]

Bump. What are the conclusions ?

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Bump. What are the conclusions ?

Make a CRT if you plan to give entities all verse power. And it will he evaluated case by case.

Usages of all powers from the verse should be elaborated and be listed instead of a statement that forces readers to look for the entire verse to know those abilities.

 

[Aachintya31]

Make a CRT if you plan to give entities all verse power. And it will he evaluated case by case.

Usages of all powers from the verse should be elaborated and be listed instead of a statement that forces readers to look for the entire verse to know those abilities.

I am confused regarding the criteria what makes a character qualifies it or not.?
Whether he scales to the AP of their creation (i.e weapons or beings) he creates through sheer power.
This thread has a lot divise staff opinion, such cases leads to even furthur revisions of standards back and forth.

 

[Aachintya31]

Bump.