• 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.

Requirements for Perfect Immortality

DontTalk

2,512
261
I would like to discuss what the requirements for Perfect Immortality should be.

This is because some recent discussion about a particular character having it. In that discussion I saw two standpoints I believe.

1) It just means inability to die by normal means (including normal means of killing). So in other words dying only means dying in the sense of ones physical body perishing and the soul passing on.

Destroying ones soul/ones concepts or existence completely doesn't fall under inability to die after that definition and perfect Immortals may still be killed by that.

2) The actual complete inability to stop existing no matter what happens. That would include living after having ones soul destroy, having ones realm destroyed, having ones concept destroyed and having any and all imaginable being trying to take you out, even ones on vastly higher planes of existence for which one may just be a character in a book. As can be seen on that definition that would really just apply to Tier 0 characters


So which of those or which different definition is actually the best?

In my opinion the second. The first one, in my opinion, is synonymous with Low-Godly Regenerationn or above and after the standards of soul hax and conceptual attacks, or otherwise attacks completly eradicating ones existence it isn't perfect immortality at all. On the other hand it of course is pretty much a more or less pointless one then, because it only applys to Tier 0, but so would be one synonymous with Low-Godly Regenerationn,no?

So ideas, alternative definition, opinions?
 
In my opinion, it might simply be easier to split it into two types and remove the second part of Type 5's definition on the Immortality page. Just keep like this perfect/absolute immortality as something exclusive for Tier 0s or beings of a level so high/100% protected by a Tier 0 that their existence cannot be overridden against their will.

There might be something which should fit between this and Type 4, though. I feel the entirety of this initial confusion comes from the fact there seems to be a type of immortality which is greater than that of traditional protection through godhood but less than absolute perfection. However, such a thing is hard to pinpoint, so I don't know.

That's just my two cents from my completely drained brain.
 
This is kind of like the strongest shield vs most powerful sword debate. One author says his character is absolutely immortal regardless of anything that happens, another writes about a character that is omnipotent. Second author wins due to omnipotent being above "absolutely anything". But the first author would no way agree to have his character killed by an omnipotent in one of his stories lol he could say that it's because of the existence of this character that omnipotents cannot exist within his story even if they would be omnipotent if this character didn't exist. Either way even if an author has the intention of an absolute character, ranked against other characters that are omnipotent means they aren't absolute despite the author's intentions.

As for Tier 0, it's like kind of omnipotence but not actually because true omnipotence cannot really be proven. True omnipotence> tier 0. True omnipotence > true omnipotence.
 
The author can be female as well. "One author says his or her character", you mean. I don't like it when it sounds like authors can only be male.
 
"His" is a default term people use when they don't know the gender of who they're talking to/about.
 
Aurasuke said:
As for Tier 0, it's like kind of omnipotence but not actually because true omnipotence cannot really be proven. True omnipotence> tier 0. True omnipotence > true omnipotence.
Click to expand...
Actually, we can't prove tier 0, either. It's literally just omnipotence which has yet to be brought into question, but we still can't prove it. That's the whole reason for the "questionable" before "omnipotence".
 
That makes sense, but it would be much clearer to use gender-netural pronouns or something to make it so it's not this side or that side. Like "they".
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
Aurasuke said:
As for Tier 0, it's like kind of omnipotence but not actually because true omnipotence cannot really be proven. True omnipotence> tier 0. True omnipotence > true omnipotence.
Click to expand...
Actually, we can't prove tier 0, either. It's literally just omnipotence which has yet to be brought into question, but we still can't prove it. That's the whole reason for the "questionable" before "omnipotence".
Click to expand...
Basically it's the humans version of omnipotence, IE do whatever they want, kind of like a writer in a story.

That makes sense, but it would be much clearer to use gender netural pronouns or something to make it so it's not this side or that side. Like "they".

Yeah but that would be using a plural which mean instead of he is, you would have to say they are, and that may be awkard at some times.
 
Well. I am unambiguous and make sure I check on which author or person that is I am talking about. So you won't see just male pronouns, but female pronouns as well, accordingly. Omnipotence is something it's talked about for quite a while and still is. There are agender/non-binary authors as well, who can neither be appropriately referred with either gender pronouns. I know all possible gender pronouns for authors in making omnipotent beings, not just male ones. There's a reason I intentionally posted the earlier comments.

And about perfect immortality, it's more complex than it sounds. Why? The person isn't just unable to die so easily from things that would also easily kill standard non-human and non-humanoid beings on a small scale or large scale, but also from things that would otherwise wipe them out of reality and unable to get back in perfect condition.
 
I agree with DontTalk that the second option is preferable for truly perfect immortality.

However, as Azathoth suggested, it would probsbly be good to come up with another definition for characters, such as Sun Wukong, that are supposedly unkillable in-story, but could logically be destroyed by entities that vastly exceed the scale of the setting itself.
 
Hmm... the problem with the idea of a type of immortality, that expresses that a character is unkillable in-story, is the fact that storys are of course vastly different.

In a story in which only animals appear I would believe Immortality Type 3, with Low High Regenerationn would be enough.

In modern human society Immortality Type 3, with Mid High Regenerationn would be sufficient.

In a verse where a character can turn physical matter to nothingness Immortality Type 3, with Low Godly Regenerationn.

In a verse with soul destroying attacks etc. Immortality Type 3, with Mid Godly Regenerationn.

And in verses with a universe busters Immortality Type 3, with High-Godly Regenerationn (assuming the entity doesn't exist on higher planes where such a thing wouldn't even scratch it in the first place).

So given that an above-ones-own-setting Type would be meaningless to compare them, because of the different powers between settings, it doesn't really help having such a type. I would believe sorting them into the existing chart with fitting Regenerationn depending on what the verse as a whole showed to be capable to accomplish might be a better strategy.
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
In my opinion, it might simply be easier to split it into two types and remove the second part of Type 5's definition on the Immortality page. Just keep like this perfect/absolute immortality as something exclusive for Tier 0s or beings of a level so high/100% protected by a Tier 0 that their existence cannot be overridden against their will.
There might be something which should fit between this and Type 4, though. I feel the entirety of this initial confusion comes from the fact there seems to be a type of immortality which is greater than that of traditional protection through godhood but less than absolute perfection. However, such a thing is hard to pinpoint, so I don't know.

That's just my two cents from my completely drained brain.
Click to expand...
Imo perfect/absolute immortality could be applied to some non Tier 0 characters, for example Sun Wukong.
 
Let me see...does Sun Wukong truly qualify for the ultimate level of transcendent, non-exploitable (that cannot be used against the being) immortality?
 
Dekoshu said:
But people should know Sun Wukong isn't absolutely omnipotent or a nearly omnipotent higher-dimensional being.
Click to expand...
Depending on how one interprets Buddhahood, Sun Wukong could be High 1-A, from what iv'e read/heard.
 
Uh-oh...So...Sun Wukong not only has abnormal immortality, but is literally a higher-dimensional being, depending on the interpretation of Buddhahood?
 
^ I don't know about the end but he was tier 7-6 for most of his life because he was traveling on earth and wasn't allowed to fly and stuff until he reached the west in which he became something called a "buddha". Technically though he actually didn't become a Budda. In journey to the west, for a being that is above the Buddha, but it doesn't really seem to have an proper translation which may be why it is misinterpreted. The one that's above Budda is what Sun had became at the end of his journey with the literally translation of "fo" which can be interpreted as the one above the Buddhas or the master of the Buddhas. Even though it is distinctive within Journey to the West, it is still derived from another sect of Buddism and thus is often misinerpreted as a Buddha.

As for their tier, you could interpret heaven as higher dimensional space as the time there is different.

Anyway in journey to the wests, I think it was only explicitly stated that Sun was completely immortal within his story, and no one else really. The other "buddha" are kind of fodder to him except for the grandmaster one that sealed him away.
 
What kind of immortality would be if can be killed only by a certain object/attack/power and you're inmune/unharmed/unable to die by others thing?
 
Deathman12 said:
The annoying dog is not tier 0 and has type 5 immortality
Click to expand...
His tier is unknown. He has likely type 5 immortality because he exists even if the game itself he is from has been deleted, trying to open the game after deleting most of the files results in the dog still showing up.

It's not perfect immortalty though, so I don't see why it should be relevant here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LightSoul8
  • Locked
Dreamworks Death Downgrade
Replies
12
Views
879
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
HakutoRei000
Tier 0 Immortality
Replies
3
Views
622
Digital_Franz
Digital_Franz
Eikichi_Sensei
  • Locked
Immortality Negation Type 4 and 8 for Slime Boy
Replies
31
Views
4K
Tempestdragon6
Tempestdragon6
Foxthefox1000
So, about Paper Mario's Immortality...
Replies
12
Views
1K
ZespeonGalaxy
ZespeonGalaxy
JimedBro2020
New Crocodile and Alligator powers
Replies
2
Views
387
JimedBro2020
JimedBro2020
Back
Top