• 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.

Rewriting the Abstract Existence page

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaltias

Kaltias

VS Battles
Retired
Messages
19,123
Reaction score
6,335
Recently, we discussed the standards for Conceptual Manipulation and the various definitions of "concept" in this thread.

As we all know, fiction is filled not only with concept manipulators, but also with living conceptual beings, and the difference between two abstracts can be just as big as the one between two concepts.

Embodying a concept can do a ton of things. It could simply grant you very good control over it, give you immortality reliant on the concept, and more.

For example, Dialga is the conceptual embodiment of time, but what this entails is that Dialga's existence sustain the flow of time. Not that Dialga can't be punched to death because time would keep it alive, or that you would need conceptual manipulation to actually damage it.

Meanwhile, an abstract like Khorne is immortal as long as the concept that it embodies exists.

As it stands right now, our page for abstract existence only covers cases like Khorne. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it limits abstract existence as a power only to a specific kind of abstracts, which is kinda like ignoring that as every other power, the scale can vary.

It would be also a good idea to always explain not only the abstract existence in terms of "what's the relationship between the abstract and the concept", but also "what type of concept it is" because as we discussed during Assalt's thread, this changes things.

TL;DR: The purpose of this thread is to rewrite the Abstract Existence page in order to reflect the fact that there are multiple kinds of abstracts in fiction. Creating a way to classify them, and detail it on the page

Thoughts?
 
Saikou The Lewd King said:
I mean, pretty sure that we only hand Abstract Existence to people who actually are a concept, not just those with Type 8 based on said concept (or the opposite), no?
Click to expand...
Well, here's the definition

This term means that a certain character is an immaterial embodiment of a fundamental abstract concept, and is able to regenerate as long as the concept itself continues to exist.

It should be noted that simply being representative of a concept does not qualify a character for this ability, as it only applies to the ones that fulfill the above requirements.
 
Maybe, but the AE page literally says that you need type 8/Mid-Godly to get it
 
"Immaterial" imply that characters who are physical, but are linked to a certain concept don't qualify, right? Which would include stuff like Dialga.
 
Saikou The Lewd King said:
"Immaterial" imply that characters who are physical, but are linked to a certain concept don't qualify, right? Which would include stuff like Dialga.
Click to expand...
Or the Entities in Star Wars
 
I always found the part about being able to Regenerate as long as said concept exists a bit nonsense when regarding what Abstract Existence is according to what the page describes. This would literally imply you are reliant on yourself, which is completely contradictory when you look at the definition of Type 8 Immortality
 
... Meanwhile, the definition for type 9 immortality says:

"9: Transcendental Immortality: Characters whose true selves exist independently from the plane where they can be killed. For example, a conceptual being doesn't die even if its body, soul, etc will be erased from existence".

Talk about contradction.
 
@Saik

Pretty much

@Ult

I think that this is supposed to mean "you can't simply be punched to death". Granted, regenerating as long as your concept exists is Mid-Godly, not type 8
 
@DMB

This part should be removed as well. Type 9 Immortality is basically the capability of being re-created infinitely by some Higher Self which dwells on another plane of existence, while not being necessarily reliant on them. Not persisting after your... everything has been erased

Regardless, I agree that the Abstract Existence page should be rewritten to better clarify stuff and convey Abstracts of different scales. There is a difference between someone who is a concept given shape and form and can resurrect after being killed without absolutely wrecking said concept and someone who is said concept and cause it's death with their own demises, who are actually permanent and involve no resurrection
 
Agreed that the AE example isn't the best for type 9 (Concepts can be in different planes of existence and whatnot, but it isn't a given).

What about the OP?

Edit ninja'd ovo
 
So say a character is the reason space-time and the multiverse is intact. And if they die, the multiverse collapses. What would that count as?
 
Zenkaibattery1 said:
So say a character is the reason space-time and the multiverse is intact. And if they die, the multiverse collapses. What would that count as?
Click to expand...
The only thing that would give him would be Omnipresence and Nigh Omniscience.

Embodying, without necessarely being merged with it fully, and having immortality reliant on it would be simply tyep 8 immortality and maybe abstract existance, I guess.
 
It wouldn't grant them anything, only a sort of domino effect when they die. Even more so if no conceptual shenanigans are involved.

Anyway this isn't about "what does this count as", it's about explaining better what being an abstract entails, and how it can change from fiction to fiction
 
Kaltias said:
For example, Dialga is the conceptual embodiment of time, but what this entails is that Dialga's existence sustain the flow of time.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely true, but well...

I'll explain tomorrow, I'm going to bed.
 
I agree completely with re-writing it. You can be abstract and embody something, yet still be physical, lack type 8, but just have an incredible affinity for it. Being abstract doesn't instantly entail full-out conceptual embodiment, and even if it did you would need to determine what KIND of concept is embodied. There is a big difference between embodying an Aristotelian concept (Creation Trio) and embodying a False Platonic Concept (Khorne, etc).

Assigning a single ability set for such a vastly variable power isn't good at all, and does need to change.
 
I should also mention that you don't really need to embody something to begin with to be abstract.

At least, I think.
 
@Ever

I thought this was kind of like... what made the power, though. How would you be an abstract being without embodying something? Otherwise you're just Non-Corporeal.
 
About the types, I had something like this in mind:

Type 1: Exists purely as a conceptual being. Something akin to a living platonic form.

Type 2: Embodies the concept and can be resurrected/regenerate indefinitely thanks to it.

Type 3: Embodies the concept, but the destruction of the former isn't needed in order to get rid of them.
 
Yes (Although according to Neo it may not be correct).

3 maybe? It would need a separate thread, this is only for general guidelines
 
I am not really clear on what the distinction is between being a conceptual being and embodying a concept, i am guessing it's that to even harm the former, you would need to be able to affect concepts, while the latter doesn't necessairily have to be the case and can be a physical being?
 
More or less yes.

It's kinda like the difference between type 1-2 conceptual manipulation and type 3.
 
I think it is worth noting that, unless proven otherwise, we can't assume Type 1 or 2. Unless the character has shown itself to be totally abstract/capable of regening from the concept they default into Type 3.
 
Ultima Reality said:
Agreed┬▓
finally The Ones of Mortis will lose that Mid-Godly
Click to expand...
Legit I don't know why they even had it in the first place. I know there was a rule a long time ago that established that Abstract Entities would have had type 8 immortality and mid-godly, but they are more pseudo-abstracts like Dialga and Palkia, and or even less.
 
@DMB

I'd say less. They don't really have anything out of the ordinary aside from higher than normal power. Even then Anakin overpowered them. Easily the weakest abstracts out there.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
@Ever

I thought this was kind of like... what made the power, though. How would you be an abstract being without embodying something? Otherwise you're just Non-Corporeal.
Click to expand...
"existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence."

This is the exact definition of "abstract".

Things like ideas or thoughts are not concepts, but they are abstract things.
 
I mean, it's technically "Abstract", but that's not really how we define it though.
 
How we define abstract is just "conceptual". It's lazy and doesn't even fit what abstract means as a word.
 
If you want to be technical, ideas are concepts, but only under the notion of "concept" used in Idealism and Nominalism.

Not something like Plato's or Aristotle's philosophy
 
I agree with Ever that we shouldn't limit Abstract Existence to concepts alone. Like he has said, it doesn't align with the meaning of the word "Abstract", and I can name a few characters who are living Ideas, but not necessarily Concepts
 
@Kal

I mean Mr. Wednesday is a living idea but isn't literally the concept of Odin.

That's what I'm referring to. There's such a thing as abstract objects that aren't concepts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Keeweed
Nonexistent Physiology (Type 3) is nonsense
Replies
13
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ar1216789
Question about Abstract Existence
Replies
25
Views
2K
Ar1216789
Ar1216789
God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
12
Views
2K
Hixkaryana
Hixkaryana
Question
Replies
8
Views
930
Curcuma_x_curcuma
TheUnshakableOne
Questuon on Type 1 Conceptual Abstract Existence
Replies
36
Views
2K
Fixxed
Fixxed
Back
Top