• 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 pt.2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaltias

Kaltias

VS Battles
Retired
Messages
19,123
Reaction score
6,335
Continued from this thread which died.

This is my draft based on the previous discussion.

It's mostly complete, but it needs some examples for type 3, and i need some help with the wording for this:

Also, if we are regrouping various kinds of abstracts (ideas, concepts, possibilities etc) under a single term, would it be a good idea to specify that even if the type of AE is the same, the kind of abstractions also makes a difference?

For example killing a type 2 abstract reliant on an idea =/= killing a type 2 reliant on a concept
Input about possible additions/better wording is also appreciated
 
I definitely agree that there are abstracts that are not conceptual. There is a distinction that needs to be made about this in order to prevent confusion. I am for this new drew being the real page.
 
Any idea about a good wording for the "even if the level is the same, the abstraction can be different" thing?
 
So Type 3 is something we list as ability, but it doesn't do anything (except what other abilities the character has)?
 
Yeah basically. Originally I was imagining it more as "this character has control over the abstraction and its manifestations because they embody it", but it isn't always the case, so as it stands now it's literally the power of "embodying the abstraction" without extra requirements
 
@DT

Essentially the idea with type 3 is that being an abstract grants you some powers, but not related to survivability/being difficult to affect

@CP

Sounds good, i'll add them
 
But are the existences of those still abstract? It sounds like neither their usual nor their true self is abstract.

And, not gonna lie, listing something that never makes a difference regarding whether or not it is listed sounds superfluous.
 
Makes sense. Personally it would be fine by me if we only divided it in type 1 and 2, given that as it stands right now, type 3 is a bit superfluous
 
Basically, type 3 is:

I am DMB 1. I embody the concept of DMB 1. So if someone wanted to destroy my concept, they would have to destroy that of DMB 1

However, the Father's concept would be the balance, and if someone wanted to destroy his concept, they would have to destroy balance itself.

That's as far as it goes for utilities if you can even define it as one.
 
What if an abstract character, who cannot be affected unless their concepts are affected, create a physical form of themselves which can be affected by conventional means? (But their true body still exists independantly; type 9) Would their physical form gain another type of abstract existence?
 
Zenkaibattery1 said:
What if an abstract character, who cannot be affected without their concepts being affected, create a physical form of themselves which can be affected by conventional means? (But their true body still exists independantly; type 9) Would their physical form gain another type of abstract existence?
Click to expand...
That's type 2.
 
No, the physical form is physical. The only part that is difficult to affect is the abstraction.

For example, you can totally touch an avatar of Madoka, touching her conceptual self is an entirely different thing
 
@Kaltias

That's the same for Spider and Raven. Their true divine forms exist independantly and aren't physical and purely conceptual, but they created physical forms of themselves like an avatar, that can be affected

That would still be type 1 for their true bodies correct?
 
Yes. But this is about rewriting the page. We'll discuss in separate CRTs who qualifies for which type
 
I don't really see the point then since you have to create an avatar in the first place to do anything. There would be no difference between what you've just described and Type 2, other thahn the original concept being sentient.
 
That's not necessarily the case. Only because an abstract needs an avatar to touch a person, it doesn't mean that they need it to use reality warping powers

@CP

Probably
 
But not all abstract have them.

Honestly, I'd reserve type 1 only for people who exist only as concepts and can do anything they want in that state.
 
Fine. Again, the only possible use I can see for type 3 is this:

I am DMB 1. I embody the concept of DMB 1. So if someone wanted to destroy my concept, they would have to destroy that of DMB 1

However, the Father's concept would be the balance, and if someone wanted to destroy his concept, they would have to destroy balance itself.

That's as far as it goes for utilities if you can even define it as one.
 
Yeah but embodiment + reliance on a concept is type 2
 
@DMB

By WoG and statements, they only created avatars because if their true forms even came into contact, existence would be destroyed. But they no longer care so have left those forms behind.

But ye, anothet thread
 
Type 3, rather then being difficult to kill because of some immortality, would possibly grant some negative consequences into destroying their concepts or simply killing them.
 
@Zenkai

Ok, we got it, they have type 1. Now please drop it

@DMB

That could work, yes. I'm neutral about having a type 3 personally
 
Type 3 doesn't really sound like Abstract Existence to me if they can be affected/killed without anything happening to the concept
 
I don't know. He will get a CRT for that when the AE page is updated.
 
Seems that ppl like absolute law and unstoppable force who are the embodiments of concepts won't count as abstracts.

So them being the embodiment of concepts just gives them control over the concepts they embody, and that's it.

Then again they were never said to be physical beings, just that they are the embodiment of the concepts of order and destruction and have control over them, what would be the default assumption on something like this? That embodiments of concepts are corporeal or that they are not?

I am also neutral on type 3 btw.
 
As a default assumption they should be physical beings
 
I agree with this. Neutral on type 3

Btw in the last thread it was proposed to change the ability's name to embodiment. Opinions?
 
I mean at the end of the day "existence" or "embodiment" changes almost nothing, it's just the name. I guess that embodiment is slightly more accurate, but it's not extremely relevant

If the others think that it's better to rename it, fine by me, but I don't really care
 
I think that the draft page looks pretty good.

What would type 3 be defined as?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
12
Views
2K
Hixkaryana
Hixkaryana
LightSoul8
  • Locked
Dreamworks Death Downgrade
Replies
12
Views
1K
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
32
Views
3K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Eneseditzm0
Aku Abstract Existence
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Question
Replies
8
Views
930
Curcuma_x_curcuma
Back
Top