• 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.

Yogiri Takatou and Aoi Hayanose, mostly others that get scaled to Plot Manipulation downgrade to Fate Manipulation.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay. It is probably best if I leave evaluating this thread to the staff members who are already here and the ones that I sent a notification to though, as it doesn't seem very important, and I am already very overworked.
 
Actually, I want to be fair to both sides of parties and announce my neutrality in this thread, I only agree with some of your points which are:
  • There are no solid evidence of them becoming worldview holders (the plot manipulators)
While later on, I want to listen what others say about it (I asked some verse supporters, and they are also confused with this)

But I only disagree with some of your points, which are
  • “Metaphoric”, while the author used more than one metafictional elements
  • “They did not mention Plot”, ya plot is not the only metafictional element and there are no standards for which term should author used to express it.
  • “He views fate as script, so it does not count!”, plot manipulation can be “fate manipulation” if it is made through metafictional setting
  • “There are no limitations”, as other staff said, this does not exist. Fate manipulation is also internal, fundamental, and yet there are limitations for it.
But notwithstanding, I will stay neutral due to one of your points which is efficacious in my point of view, but I also dissent with some other counter-arguments.
 
Last edited:
Dread said:
Actually, I want to be fair to both sides of parties and announce my neutrality in this thread, I only agree with some of your points which are:
  • There are no solid evidence of them becoming worldview holders (the plot manipulators)
While later on, I want to listen what others say about it (I asked some verse supporters, and they are also confused with this)

But I only disagree with some of your points, which are
  • “Metaphoric”, while the author used more than one metafictional elements
  • “They did not mention Plot”, ya plot is not the only metafictional element and there are no standards for which term should author used to express it.
  • “He views fate as script, so it does not count!”, plot manipulation can be “fate manipulation” if it is made through metafictional setting
  • “There are no limitations”, as other staff said, this does not exist.
But notwithstanding, I will stay neutral due to one of your points which is efficacious in my point of view, but I also dissent with some other counter-arguments.
Click to expand...
Dread.... okay. But my point still stands, the description towards 'protagonist', 'fate-value', 'looking at the fate script', 'meta-story' is a movie metaphor to makes the explanation sounds intresting. Since Aoi has explain in detail about it, and she use "if" as a connotations for metaphor, also after that she use 'to keep the movie metaphor' which is indeed implies you can't take it as a literal, but contextual as a variations of fate stuff. Even the "raw" (you may scrool above, my friend @WanderingGecko has explained the furigana behind "script" as only means to look at, or a bird-view stands).
 
The problems that makes me convinces myself is because of that elements, they are only means to act as a movie metaphor. Even the next volume such as volume 4, when Yogiri fought with Yumisaka (if I recall the name right), the overall reality manipulation of that fictions literally explains to manipulate future, and that person is much powerful than Aoi, who is the weakest sage in sense.
 
EinelRendezvous said:
Dread.... okay. But my point still stands, the description towards 'protagonist', 'fate-value', 'looking at the fate script', 'meta-story' is a movie metaphor to makes the explanation sounds intresting. Since Aoi has explain in detail about it, and she use "if" as a connotations for metaphor, also after that she use 'to keep the movie metaphor' which is indeed implies you can't take it as a literal, but contextual as a variations of fate stuff. Even the "raw" (you may scrool above, my friend @WanderingGecko has explained the furigana behind "script" as only means to look at, or a bird-view stands).
Click to expand...
The author used over 5 metafictional elements and also used movie to describe the world. I mean, I won't be strict and call it metaphoric, if the person views such those, it is more reality-fiction transcendence view point (not even a requirement). He even called fate as script. If you are much perfectionist about it, sure thing, but I would rather go to what the author at the end wants.

And I saw what your friend did (great friend), but at the same time, the work what we are arguing for is actual metafiction work (it should be one at least to even be qualified). There are official canon work (not only light novel, and here in vsb wiki, we don't value light novel over manga unless the author stated it so).
And I brought the evidence (no matter how you want to interpret it, fate and plot are separated).
EinelRendezvous said:
The problems that makes me convinces myself is because of that elements, they are only means to act as a movie metaphor. Even the next volume such as volume 4, when Yogiri fought with Yumisaka (if I recall the name right), the overall reality manipulation of that fictions literally explains to manipulate future, and that person is much powerful than Aoi, who is the weakest sage in sense.
Click to expand...
Sounds different POV, I assume? I mean, it is fair to have such POV, but also the amount of description he added, I won't call it any more metaphoric. It is metaphoric if it was a sentence out of nowhere. But he added a good amount of details.

But at the end of the day, the other counterargument you brought (Worldview holder), it is fair to me. Nothing suggests it and I don't think they will be any solid evidence for it (Depends on what others suggest/says)

Regardless, I am more excited if there are any evidence for the girl to be worldview holder. So, I will stay neutral on this topic (you can remove my vote, and add it under neutral one)
 
Ok. I believe Aoi and Yogiri has no means to be a World-View Holders, as far as I read both of them. What only in commons is they are from the same author. But never really crossed-out in a crossover or using a same power-concept.

Also, what "if" and "movie metaphor" means to you when Aoi explain that? Are you sure you can take it in literal?
 
EinelRendezvous said:
Ok. I believe Aoi and Yogiri has no means to be a World-View Holders, as far as I read both of them. What only in commons is they are from the same author. But never really crossed-out in a crossover or using a same power-concept.
Click to expand...
I agree with this point, after re-reading everything, I am wondering which argument is for it to be world-view Holders. But I will leave this for the person who did it and also the staff who approve it (maybe I will read the thread once again to understand it, but you have a good point on this, I must admit)
EinelRendezvous said:
Also, what "if" and "movie metaphor" means to you when Aoi explain that? Are you sure you can take it in literal?
Click to expand...
It is metafiction work. I mean, for me, when the author describes the whole reality as “a movie” in a storytelling direction, I won't doubt if it is taken literal.
Specially, the authors always intend to use different terms for it. For example, in my verse (a big CRT will be made by me soon), one God view his world as a stage, and in the other hand, an antagonist was changing event through a book.

The mention of “plot” in every sentence is also boring to read, so I am pretty sure the author use those to describe what he is intending. It is my POV.
Also, wanna work with me on Sinbad one?
 
“What is the evidence Aoi is a WV holder?”

Remember the statement I showed from NWC which states “EVERYONE HAS A WORLDVIEW” and “WV HOLDERS CAN INFLUENCE THOSE AROUND THEM WITH THEIR WV”?

Then I showed a statement which says her ability involves others in her world (Which I’m positive is also in the LN described as the ability to drag others into her world)

Yogiri aside (I don’t think I’ve ever made an argument for him being a WV holder), Aoi is definitely a WV holder.
 
I’ll leave with this;

imagine if bleach had a sister series set in the same multiverse with some characters being from the same universe as the bleach cast, but they don’t really use zanpaktos or spirit pressure to fight here because they have magic.

If we have a character who exudes an aura to harm others and says “I’ll break you with my spirit” are we not gonna say that’s soul crush?
 
YungManzi said:
(Which I’m positive is also in the LN described as the ability to drag others into her world)
Click to expand...
AT320re.jpg


Home now :)

Edit:

Now contrast this with the explanation on World Views;

"This is all just what I was told, so I don’t know all the details, but the point is, every person has their own world,” Tomomi said. “And while every person has their own world, the broad outlines are predetermined, and there are central figures who are like the personification of a given worldview. Those people are called Worldview Holders.”
“And they decide the rules of the world?” Yuichi asked. It all sounded pretty absurd to Yuichi. People like that would basically be called gods.
“They aren’t necessarily doing it consciously,” Tomomi said. “But the worldviews of the people around the Holder are strongly influenced by the Holder’s own. As a result, the world around a Holder will cohere into one the Holder recognizes. Of course, there are a lot of Holders out there, which means you sometimes wind up with conflicting worldviews coming into contact. When that happens, it’s called a World Conflict, and the weaker world is integrated into the stronger one.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What these scans are describing sounds like Subjective Reality and maybe Fate Manipulation, where's the plot stuff in any of these?
 
Duedate8898 said:
What these scans are describing sounds like Subjective Reality and maybe Fate Manipulation, where's the plot stuff in any of these?
Click to expand...
These scans I'm posting are not directly for plot manipulation for Aoi, it's supporting why Aoi is a Worldview holder. And Worldview holders are plot manipulators according to people on the NWC side of things.

But yes, it's also Subjective Reality, Power Nullification, Causality Manipulation, Fate manipulation, Law Manipulation, Plot Manipulation, Conceptual Manipulation, all the above.

  • Plot Manipulation: Worldviews are the idea that everyone lives in their own world, and there were as many worlds as there were people. Worldview's refers to the laws governing a given world. Due to being a Protagonist, Ryoma could enter any worldview, the plot itself would always favor Ryoma and he ultimately would always succeed in any worldview he was in. Ryoma later learned how to control the plot itself which he does using 5 cards, he calls event cards. Using his ability to manipulate the plot, Ryoma can also manipulate the principles of causality themselves.
Click to expand...
  • Plot Manipulation Yuichi's worldview is a worldview that fuses with the worldviews of others, creating new worldviews, with his worldview absorbing the others worldview. In Yuichi's worldview he is invincible as there will always be a chance that he can win, and as long as there is a chance he can win, he will always win. Yuichi is The Last One Standing: Humanity’s Line of Defense, Guardian of the human-centric world we currently live in, Yuichi fights against those who attempt to upend the world order and rework it to be centered around gods and mythical creatures, as such his world view encompasses the entirety of humanity. Even Ryoma who was protagonist, and could enter any worldview and become the protagonist of that worldview and as such the plot would always favor him, leading him to gain convenient power ups or his opponents committing CIS, was easily defeated by Yuichi due to Yuichi's role in his story being greater than Ryoma's. The ability is passive as it fuses with and overpowers any worldview of the people that he encounters, and Yuichi isn't even aware of his ability.
Click to expand...
Those are the explanations on Worldviews, I didn't really read that series though so I can't really argue against whether or not WV are Plot Manipulation tbh. :unsure:
 
The plot term is separated when Aoi is described as fate/destiny, plot, and the like as being a joke to Yogiri's true form, in the LN raws; so, I see it is possible they are different from the evidence above, and make less sense if they are metaphors, especially when they are shown as separated in some key instance.
The raws used above:
Besides, plot manipulation can emulate other abilities like fate, according to the page:
  • Users may be able to determine how things will proceed by writing into the plot what is going to happen (emulating fate, causality and/or probability manipulation).
The case above could also apply to Yukimasa regarding plot manipulation.
Aoi's inability to erase the dragon is more of the mechanism of her worldview, and she still could affect the dragons, as Overlord explained; the plot usage is judged on a case-by-case basis, so it could be just her usage, and it is not necessarily a counterpoint for removal. It seems like the point is indirectly using NLF by saying because the ability has limits, it should be removed, similar to what Theglassman12 said.

The scan above shows Aoi's ability drags others to her internal world like Worldview.
I think the opposition points make more sense.
 
Last edited:
Dropping these since this is interesting reference.



Aoi ability described her ability as "Cruel World That Only Reward Effort."



And someone in Nee-chan with Worldview also has almost the same ability.

  1. Both series are made by the same author.
  2. Both series take place in the same verse.
  3. All Japanese (Yogiri, Tomochika, Shion, and possibly all other Sages which would include Aoi) came from same universe as Nee-chan. This is evidence by reference thrown by both sides of story.



So indeed, both series correlate.
 
Elizhaa said:
The plot term is separated when Aoi is described as fate/destiny, plot, and the like as being a joke to Yogiri's true form, in the LN raws; so, I see it is possible they are different from the evidence above, and make less sense if they are metaphors, especially when they are shown as separated in some key instance.
The raws used above:
Besides, plot manipulation can emulate other abilities like fate, according to the page:
  • Users may be able to determine how things will proceed by writing into the plot what is going to happen (emulating fate, causality and/or probability manipulation).
The case above could also apply to Yukimasa regarding plot manipulation.
Aoi's inability to erase the dragon is more of the mechanism of her worldview, and she still could affect the dragons, as Overlord explained; the plot usage is judged on a case-by-case basis, so it could be just her usage, and it is not necessarily a counterpoint for removal. It seems like the point is indirectly using NLF by saying because the ability has limits, it should be removed, similar to what Theglassman12 said.

The scan above shows Aoi's ability drags others to her internal world like Worldview.
I think the opposition points make more sense.
Click to expand...
We should note that Aoi's explanation of seeing Yogiri as it really is, she refers to Yogiri as "the end of all destinies" [ 1 ], and the words that carry "plot" [ 2 ] have no coherence because they do not act as our standard definition of plot, we define "plot" as a fundamental aspect that sees reality as fictional. Aoi is not like that, the point where she sees fate as a "script" is directly explained by her as a "movie metaphor" [ 3 ] which means a metaphor only, and in her explanation includes "if" [ 4 ]. A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn't literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison. And here Aoi's explanation to Yogiri that "plot" can be interpreted like that. And also officially based on the novel, plot is never 'mentioned' [5] anywhere but only correlated fate so as our standard that prioritises the primary source, here LN is better to believe in a way that if you think about it, the "plot" included in the manga is not explained anymore into what form, not even into a fundamental form so we cannot arbitrarily say like that.

Furthermore, there is no other evidence that contains what this 'plot' is related to, but it is always fate that is brought up. Destiny is defined as everything that governs things and in order to defeat someone who is protected by destiny, it is necessary for destiny to also fight back [ 6 ]. This is a blantant form of Fate Manipulation, and it is never indicated that Fate works how the plot works on us. With this, it is clear that the understanding you bring is not contextually aware at all, saying the opposition is "more reasonable" when they lack a lot of evidence such as;
1. There is no evidence that Aoi is a "World-View Holder" other than just saying that her abilities are similar in description.
2. There is no "plot" in the official novels and raws, as has been brought up here. It always leads to metaphors.
3. There is no evidence that fate acts as a fundamental aspect that views reality as fictional. So it doesn't follow our standards.

[ 1 ] https://gyazo.com/cdddc7488a502adfcbc0d4435fa1a691
[2] https://gyazo.com/a753d41cd683fa65adc56c33be6d54e8
[3]
[ 4 ]
[ 5 ] https://gyazo.com/5860d6d09ade91e10895e166b496bee6
[ 6 ] https://gyazo.com/f434878a3d45b248685c907e3e2183fe
 
Overlord_THE_END said:
Dropping these since this is interesting reference.



Aoi ability described her ability as "Cruel World That Only Reward Effort."



And someone in Nee-chan with Worldview also has almost the same ability.

  1. Both series are made by the same author.
  2. Both series take place in the same verse.
  3. All Japanese (Yogiri, Tomochika, Shion, and possibly all other Sages which would include Aoi) came from same universe as Nee-chan. This is evidence by reference thrown by both sides of story.



So indeed, both series correlate.
Click to expand...

The reference you brought above has a misinterpretation. Because the description of the ability 'Mutsuko' has a mechanism as an ability that can be used to defeat World-View Holders because it is not limited by mere viewpoints and logically, a weaker world-view will be swallowed up, which is why there is a description from Yuichi mentioning this: "You end up with a world conflict. The two fuse, with the weaker world absorbed by the stronger. In most cases, the more special world is more powerful. So if that happened, the magic world would overwrite the normal one." - Because what actually happened was explaining the analogy between the two World-View Holders. It could not be the case that Aoi had these abilities, just because "the names are similar" while the mechanics were very different, where Aoi's Cruel World and Power of Balance were only abilities that brought the world closer to the user and manipulated it in the subtle flow of fate. These are two abilities that already have different premises.

This analogy is not clever enough to say that Aoi is WVH. Since the references only act as references, there is no "canon" intent in the implementation of the story. Pressuring a reference to be the same without any evidence of continuity will only lead you into the Slippery Slope Fallacy. And, for the next reference of Chiharu are two different entities. Chiharu in neechan chuunibyou is an acquaintance of Yuichi who is another chuunibyou girl, and is fat [ 1 ]. In Instant Death, she is described as the guardian ghost of Tomochika, and the character who is the responsible person for not letting Sion's system be installed on Tomochika as a way of protecting her, and later reveals herself to Tomochika, and eventually to Yogiri. Her skill set also dates back to the Heian period, so it's a long way off, but what really sets them apart is their backgrounds. Tomochika here is her "descendants", which is why she protects Tomochika and becomes her Ancestial Guardian [ 2 ]. There is no correlation at all, you are committing the Half-Truth Fallacy by ignoring the context that the Chiharu in Nee-chan chuunibyou is just an acquaintance of Yuuichi and she is still alive. They are two different entities.

[ 1 ] https://gyazo.com/b29e08c2f4a8be512130b60e4fe5547b
[ 2 ]
 
Sorry to say, all of your refference is just a manipulating context man. They have no correlation at all. I have prove why, especially the second refference. They are literally a different character. One is the ancestor of Tomochika and Guardian of her (from ID), while Chiharu from Neechan Chuunibyou is a fat-chuunibyou girl who can do archery. Are you serious making claim like that?🤣
 
What is the point of arguing about if a character is being referenced from one series or another? The stories come from the same setting lol, it’s undeniable.

 
The point is we can't do a hasty generalization fallacy just because it comes from the same author. For example Arale from Dr Slump who is on the same setting with Dragon Balls, you can't claim Zen-Oh has a same hax capability like her (plot hax, HDM stuff) just because they are from the same setting, and Zen-Oh consistenly called as the King of All and the strongest that can erase everything including U7 existence which Arales stand in.
 
EinelRendezvous said:
The point is we can't do a hasty generalization fallacy just because it comes from the same author. For example Arale from Dr Slump who is on the same setting with Dragon Balls, you can't claim Zen-Oh has a same hax capability like her (plot hax, HDM stuff) just because they are from the same setting, and Zen-Oh consistenly called as the King of All and the strongest that can erase everything including U7 existence which Arales stand in.
Click to expand...
Zen-Oh's powers aren't described, shown, stated, and named all extremely similarly to Arale's powers.
False equivalence.
 
You make an error in that comparison lol. Your analogy is not as good as you think it is because the setting, which the author said was the same, establishes that everyone has a worldview. It’s world-building, it doesn’t just magically disappear. Then the character appears and says that she pulls characters into her internal worldview and the mechanics and naming convention are uncanny in how similar they are. How is this anything like unrelated personal abilities?

This aren’t just some references haha here and there. The author acknowledges that he made the setting the same, the world building carries over.
 
Not a false equivalence. Rather you are doing red-herring by describing a certain similiar. In facts, the point of your arguments holds as "they are from the same setting" so do Zen-Oh and Arale, if Zen-Oh called as the strongest and can erase everything, then by your logics, he should have a capability to neg Arale's hax and kill her for eternity.
 
By using occam's razor, saying Aoi has a world-view holders and saying Aoi has none and only treated as a Sage Power that controls destiny is more easy to prove for the second point. The first point literally has no concrete proof other than refferencing, and it's complicated scaling with zero-evidences of canon statements enough to clear the problem. Your premise holds a double fallacy; first half-truth, and second a hasty generalization one.
 
It’s really not even that lol. It goes.
Aoi’s power mechanics explained as pulling characters into her own worldview -> setting already stablished what worldviews are and how they function. It’s two steps.

There’s no reason why a Sage ability awakening couldn’t be worldview related so why is it even a counter-argument.
 
To prove something is harder than disproving it. You need proof and canon statements where Sage power can be treated as a World-View Holder. Also, every Sage has their own variations of technique. So, saying a similiar description is not in the case, I have explain also for the one who holds a similiar descriptions toward Cruel World of Aoi is a misinterpretations; Because the description of the ability 'Mutsuko' has a mechanism as an ability that can be used to defeat World-View Holders because it is not limited by mere viewpoints and logically, a weaker world-view will be swallowed up, which is why there is a description from Yuichi mentioning this: "You end up with a world conflict. The two fuse, with the weaker world absorbed by the stronger. In most cases, the more special world is more powerful. So if that happened, the magic world would overwrite the normal one." - Because what actually happened was explaining the analogy between the two World-View Holders. It could not be the case that Aoi had these abilities, just because "the names are similar" while the mechanics were very different, where Aoi's Cruel World and Power of Balance were only abilities that brought the world closer to the user and manipulated it in the subtle flow of fate. These are two abilities that already have different premises. ( 2 ).

You need to bring a solid evidences that prove your canonity, you can't just do a hasty generalization.
 
Ottavio_Merluzzo said:
Arale and Zenō do not share the same setting in that sense. It's a complicated situation and it'd be a false equivalence.
Click to expand...
They did share the same setting. Dragon Ball Super crossover, Dragon Ball kid cameo, and Dragon World map where it puts Arale's home saying everything. The value here, by using a logic of you guys, Zen-Oh would had a way to neg a plot hax because he can erase everything. And Arale who holds no capability to face him by same setting means will get affected as well.

Ottavio_Merluzzo said:
Other than that, i disagree with the OP for Elizhaa and the other's reasoning.
Click to expand...
At this point you're being ignorance. I've prove everything as misinterpretations, right now you guys just doing a hasty generalization by the same setting lol.
 
You write too much filler inbetween the premises you are trying to construct alongside talking like if we are in a debating contest irl with judges taking points. It would really help in understanding you if you could compress your points down to more concise ideas and follow with your proof afterwards.

I honestly couldn’t understand what your point clearly was in that text to tackle it. I understand your proof but I don’t understand what you are trying to prove.
 
Huh? What I been saying the whole time, I'm bringing an analogy where will get chain-scaling if you doing careless scaling just because they come from such same settings and author. If they have no canon statements to concrete the claims, then there is no point to take interpretation and cross-scaling them. That's why I bring stuff about Zen-Oh and Arale which literally share the same premise like you guys. It's a fallacy when you put that way.
 
I mean, I’m sure you can come up with a better analogy— Your Zenō Analogy is really far-fetched because the only thing they share in common with this case is that they share the same author and sometimes cross over lol.

If you are gonna try to try to appeal to a case by case scenario with a separate scenario you better at least have an extremely similar case.

Worldview is a universal idea that is carried through regardless of series. There is no denying that it is present in everyone in verse as a background thing as it comes inherently with the setting’s world-building.

The only part one needs to see is that the worldview is being actually used unlike with the vast majority of the population. The worldview terminology is used to explain the fundamental mechanics and not effects of the ability of Aoi Hayanose.

Note that this is unrelated from Mutsuko. Furthermore no Sage has any variation of the more fundamental mechanics behind Aoi’s ability. The battle song system simply gifts you with an ability that suits the user’s character best, nothing in the story implies it to be limited in awakening the use of a worldview so it coming from the system or as a sage is irrelevant to try to diminish the credibility (though it isn’t in favour of it either, it simply shouldn’t even be part of this conversation).
 
Actually, this is just in: someone pointed out to me that Aoi’s system ability is clarified to be her Hero Killer Eyes.



Her Hero Killer Eyes are the Sage ability she was given. Just World isn’t her system ability. So to make things worse(?) her ability has no apparent relation with Instant Death’s common power-system on top of being explained as a worldview-working ability (worldview as in the common idea that everyone in the verse has)
 
You argument right now only bring us into a circularity. Which you claim nothing over no supports of evidences. You are not proving anything, you just telling me with rethorical question and case to support your claim, which is false. I'll say this, in bold, You need to canon-statements where Aoi's power holds the same like World-View Holder, not just do a generalization fallacy just because they hold a similiar description, because other than Aoi, none in Instant Death has ever shows feat to manipulates the world around by emulating the fate-value, right now I have disprove about the canonity to it, especially the argumen that been brought by @Overlord_THE_END which contains a half-truth fallacy. If you can't bring a concrete evidence, then there is no proof to do a cross-scaling. It's very simple, what you are doing right now is wrong based on Occam's Razor as a structure premise that says, the claim would be more correct if you can explain it in simplistic and with a solid simplistic proof too.

PhantomØ4 said:
Actually, this is just in: someone pointed out to me that Aoi’s system ability is clarified to be her Hero Killer Eyes.



Her Hero Killer Eyes are the Sage ability she was given. Just World isn’t her system ability. So to make things worse(?) her ability has no apparent relation with Instant Death’s common power-system on top of being explained as a worldview-working ability.
Click to expand...

Bro, Hero Killer Eyes is not an abilities from Aoi but the variations of her sage power. I hope you can read it again, the narrations literally use 'he' to reffers another character that talk with her when refferencing. Also the ability has been explained as a precognition to sees fate itself, not manipulates it.
 
- Scans for Hero Killer Eyes.

And the statements from your scans literally "Aoi had two main powers" and the first statement that reffers to her sage powers (which is corresponding to Fate) is enough to prove her just world is from her sage power. Saying that's not, is a simple contradictions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Nexus_still_slams
  • Locked
Just another Debunk of Yogiri (Instant Death)
Replies
30
Views
4K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Ace_craft_x
Yogiri reactive evolution resistance removal questioning
Replies
14
Views
1K
Dishano
Dishano
Ace_craft_x
Possible yogiri takato reactive evolution resistance removal questioning
Replies
0
Views
304
Ace_craft_x
Ace_craft_x
SweetDao
  • Locked
Yogurt addition and some removals (Instant Death)
Replies
21
Views
3K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
Nexus_still_slams
  • Locked
The endless war against Yogiri's fans. (Debunking Yogiri and Instant death characters)
2 3
Replies
95
Views
12K
Theglassman12
Theglassman12
Back
Top