- 21,783
- 4,826
Type 2 Immortality as it has been explained to me several times essentially means "can survive attacks that should be lethal, regardless of Regenerationn". For example, the Magical Girls from the Puella Magi verse can survive damage up to and including decapitation, not because they can regenerate from these injuries (though they can heal themselves), but because the damage simply isn't lethal to them.
However, the name and definition of Type 2 imply that it is impossible to have both Type 2 Immortality and Type 3 / Regenerationn. However, if Type 2 is indeed simply the ability to "not die from wounds that should kill a normal human", then this implication is incorrect, and it is possible to have both Type 2 Immortality and Regenerationn / Type 3
For example, a being with Type 2 and Regenerationn could regenerate if their head was cut off, but they would also still survive if their head was cut off by a Regenerationn negating weapon, whereas a being with only Type 3 would die if they suffered a lethal wound from a Regenerationn negating weapon.
So, I believe that the definition of Type 2 immortality should be changed. This would not be a large or disruptive change, as it would continue to have the current requirements of type 2. So, my proposed definition is:
"2: Immortality independent of Regenerationn: Characters with this degree of immortality can survive injuries that would otherwise be lethal to a normal person, without needing to heal from it."
I'm not happy with the name, so input would be appreciated on that if this is accepted.
However, the name and definition of Type 2 imply that it is impossible to have both Type 2 Immortality and Type 3 / Regenerationn. However, if Type 2 is indeed simply the ability to "not die from wounds that should kill a normal human", then this implication is incorrect, and it is possible to have both Type 2 Immortality and Regenerationn / Type 3
For example, a being with Type 2 and Regenerationn could regenerate if their head was cut off, but they would also still survive if their head was cut off by a Regenerationn negating weapon, whereas a being with only Type 3 would die if they suffered a lethal wound from a Regenerationn negating weapon.
So, I believe that the definition of Type 2 immortality should be changed. This would not be a large or disruptive change, as it would continue to have the current requirements of type 2. So, my proposed definition is:
"2: Immortality independent of Regenerationn: Characters with this degree of immortality can survive injuries that would otherwise be lethal to a normal person, without needing to heal from it."
I'm not happy with the name, so input would be appreciated on that if this is accepted.
