• 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.

An issue with Abstract Existence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wokistan

Wokistan

Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
16,912
7,361
Born out of this thread. Should read it (or at least the later parts of it) before contributing to this.

Currently, Abstract Existence type 3 is defined as such:

  • Type 3: Embodies an abstraction, but the destruction of the former isn't needed in order to destroy or affect them. These characters do not rely on the abstraction to survive, but thanks to their affinity with it, they are able to manipulate it.
My issue? Just being able to be killed the regular way would seem to preclude actually existing in an abstract fashion, statements be damned. This seems more like just concept/law/whatever manip except the wielder has a special affinity for a certain concept/law/whatever, which is not the same thing as claiming that the wielder themselves exists as an abstract being. To quote myself from the other thread:

Wokistan said:
That's the thing. You can't be said to embody something when you fail to display said characteristics. If you are to be made up of something abstract like a concept but just get smacked by some non concept manipulator, that's a knock against you truly embodying that concept in the sense applicable to considering your very existence as an abstract one. Having dominion over your concept is all cool and good but it doesn't immedately make the user themselves an abstract being, just gives them power over things of an abstract nature.
Click to expand...
So really, what is the purpose of AE type 3? As it is it's just manipulation of abstractions but there's a reason for it, which is nice and all but doesn't change the state of existence held by the user. As it's a page for Abstract Existence, this type seems to be incongruous with the idea of the page and other two types where the abstraction actually is integral to their existence.

So yeah. Open to suggestions on the purpose of Type 3, if it should be reworded, revised, removed, etc.
 
That's the thing. You can't be said to embody something when you fail to display said characteristics. If you are to be made up of something abstract like a concept but just get smacked by some non concept manipulator, that's a knock against you truly embodying that concept in the sense applicable to considering your very existence as an abstract one. Having dominion over your concept is all cool and good but it doesn't immedately make the user themselves an abstract being, just gives them power over things of an abstract nature.

How do we really know if the person has some non concept manipulation ability or item? Example: IG Thanos affecting the deities that govern an embodiment in the marvel universe.

"That's just an item that can manipulate such concept-" the problen surfaces when there's no mentioned that it can, it just can.
 
The infinity gauntlet's been explained to work that way though.
 
Alongside actual conceptual manipulation. It's a very versatile tool.
 
Being stated to embody something isn't enough to warrant Abstract Existence, either Type 1 or 2, and thus not enough to warrant people hurting you having Conceptual Manip. It needs to be explained that you are literally an sentient abstraction that IS the concept or that your existence is linked to the concept and won't die as long as it exists. Then and only then we can give people who hurt you stuff like conceptual manip.
 
@Shadow Except that it doesn't do anything. It's just a status, not an ability. Being able to manipulate the concept is already covered in other abilities or conceptual manip. There is no need for it to exist.
 
I think it could still be worthy of noting in the profile, especially if them being able to manipulate a concept stems from being an embodiment of it, but if most people don't see it as being important enough to have it listed, then I can go along with that.
 
It's just a rationale for having concept manipulation.
 
Yeah, I agree with this, I'd rather just list it as Conceptual Manipulation, or have the pages themselves clarify that character X has certain affinity to a concept / constant Y and thus has some degree of control over it. That can be written in brackets under the Power and Abilities section, or on the Notable Attacks / Techniques part or whatever.
 
Yeah, it was originally planned to give the Four Horsemen from Darksiders Type 3 abstract existence, but considered the ability isn't really an ability. Removing it is probably the best option.
 
Makes sense, i think the problem mainly was in the fact that Type 3 barely changes if at all what the character is about, prime example being the creation trio from Pokemon
 
This is what I said about the topic from the last thread:

Im gonna be honest here. I really think that the default assumption should be that a character relies on a concept if they are made to embody one.

Because looking at it from my perspective, if a character embodies a concept, that concept is a part of their existence. Someone embodies the concept of death, then death is a part of them. Someone embodies the concept of life and life is a part of them. The concept is a part of their very being. So ask yourself this: why would someone not rely on something thats a part of them? Thats like saying we humans dont rely on a heart or brain to live when its a part of who we are and how we are able to continue living.

So I think that if a character is stated to embody a concept, making that concept a part of themselves, then there's no reason to assume they don't rely on it when its a part of their existence. Unless something says otherwise. Thats the thing I wanted to get out before this thread closed.

And I still stand by this. If a character is established to literally be a concept, then it should be first assumed that they rely on the concept to live as the concept is a part of them.
 
Hearing Wokistan's case, I'm willing to see it get removed as well.
 
Thats cause statements < what actually happens. Characters are said to embody things all the time in a non literal sense. For example, Kharn being the embodiment of Khorne's wrath. He's not strictly reliant on Khorne (Khorne can chose to revive him, but can also just let him die) and is no more an abstract being than a regular person is for feeling the emotions of anger. Similarly, The Dragon (Katana ZERO, pages WIP) can chose to embody death later in the game. This changes literally nothing about his physiology. If all a character is is just "embodiment of whatever", such an unsubstantiated claim shouldn't result in anything until it's demonstrated.
 
Yeah, just being refered to as embodying something shouldn't grant you anything at all without further context. Even ignoring purely metaphorical statements (Somebody "embodying speed" just due to being fast), a majority of actual embodiments don't have any actual immortality based on their stuff, they just have control over it or something.
 
Again, the point that I posted above has absolutely nothing to do with characters that are said to be conceptual embodiments in a metaphorical/flowerly sense but characters who are conceptual embodiments in a literal sense.

So any argument that has to do with the former has nothing to do with my point.
 
This would mean you are arguing about something entirely unrelated to the thread.
 
Wokistan said:
This would mean you are arguing about something entirely unrelated to the thread.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be best to take that up with Kalt and the others like Celestial Pegasus?

The argument from the other sides doesn't sound compelling if I gonna be honest here when I look up the thread on where Type 3 was apparently accepted.
 
That was referring to kukui.

I'm pretty sure he's not using that line of reasoning to say type 3 should stay.
 
Wokistan said:
That was referring to kukui.

I'm pretty sure he's not using that line of reasoning to say type 3 should stay.
Click to expand...
Oh no I mean informing Kalt and the others about this thread since they were the ones that included this type of immorality as the argument isn't that compelling for accepting Type 3 tbh.
 
I highlighted the thread and he participated on tbe thread that spawned this one, but you can message him if you want. Let me go copy his comment from before real quick.

Assalt said a little while ago that he'd be busy for some time.
 
Kaltias said:
Just commenting on the general AE stuff bc idk Bleach.

Type 3 AE is for "I embody an abstraction so I can manipulate it" sort of abstracts.

So it isn't "I can manipulate the concept of space", it's "I can manipulate the concept of space because I embody it" (Palkia for example, although it might not be the best example because I lost track of how we treat conceptual/abstract stuff in Pokemon).

Is it redundant? I mean, yeah, I pointed out that myself when rewriting the page, it's simply concept (Or whatever abstraction) manipulation due to a specific reason, but people wanted to add type 2 and 3 regardless.
Click to expand...
 
Wokistan said:
This would mean you are arguing about something entirely unrelated to the thread.
Click to expand...
Looking back at this, I might've misinterpreted your main point. My bad on that.

So forget everything I said here so far everyone.
 

Yeah that argument implies he was neutral to Type 3. Also it also couldn't be just be concept manipulation as in the case of Palkia and Dialga, they have their own abilities respectively for what they manipulated is space and/or time.
 
I think that another solutions than removing type 3, could be to have the wording rewritten to better clarify that a character still has to actually embody/be a concept in order to qualify. Meaning, the story simply handles them in an irrational manner, by allowing them to be affected by purely physical attacks.
 
I agree with removing it altogether.
 
I'm neutral towards removing it or not (Didn't feel strongly about it either way to begin with) although if the issue is redundancy, type 2 has the same problem because it's just conceptual immortality type 8.

The only type of AE that can't be classified as something other than AE is type 1.
 
Kaltias said:
I'm neutral towards removing it or not (Didn't feel strongly about it either way to begin with) although if the issue is redundancy, type 2 has the same problem because it's just conceptual immortality type 8.

The only type of AE that can't be classified as something other than AE is type 1.
Click to expand...

Type 8 isn't just considered a conceptual immorality though.

Reliant Immortality: The character cannot die as long as a certain being, object, or even concept exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
7
Views
935
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
Quintessence_PE
  • Locked
YanSen ae type 1
Replies
19
Views
1K
Quintessence_PE
Quintessence_PE
God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
32
Views
3K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Ar1216789
Question about Abstract Existence
Replies
25
Views
1K
Ar1216789
Ar1216789
Megaraptor149
  • Locked
GOH: Regarding Abstract Existence (Type 1)
Replies
19
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top