I was granted Permission to speak in this thread by Armor.
Current Invulnerability Standards Doesn't Fix, It Lies:
Fairly basic premise, one seen before, and one that was dismissed for reasons I can't seem to understand.
These "mechanics" specifically work through means that are NOT Invulnerability, and instead through hax abilities to simulate the EFFECT of Invulnerability.
For instance, one that is brought by Agnaa is the previous threads a lot is Rizuka. Except she's explicitly not Invulnerable. She's using Time Manipulation as a means to keep her body in temporal stasis and thus not allow any actions that occur within the flow of time around her damage her, because things like effect taking place after being hit requires time to pass. She's got
Time Manipulation.
The Siberian? They use a Shard that connects Manton to aliens and Manton "chooses the forces" that will affect her. Or in other words, manipution of Physics/Vectors/Momentum of some kind that prevents any force from being applied onto Manton. Not ACTUALLY being Invulnerable.
Even when Agnaa refutes the idea of this in the thread because it's pointed out this change abolishes "Natural Invulnerability", or Invulnerability that is objectively correct and true without the usage of a Mechanism, his response is to say
"No, it exists, but" and then openly contradict.
"No changes can be made to my body" is not Invulnerability. It is a form of stasis. In fact, the subsequent example of "being the concept of America" literally makes no sense to use as an example for a mechanism for Invulnerability, because WE HAVE A POWER FOR THAT. It's called
Abstract Existence.
So outright, Invulnerability standards do not function properly. The very need of an explanatory mechanism removes the possibility of it being Invulnerability, because the very nature of a Mechanism that is not "I just AM passively invulnerable with no asterisks" means it is a separate thing entirely. Because even if they don't explicitly say "this is via time Manipulation", we would index it as a form of it. Likely "Unconventional."
In fact, I know this for certain, because the current Invulnability standards have it so that someone like
Satoru Gojo should be invulnerable. Or
Accelerator. Or anyone with AE (as mentioned before). Or
Giorno Giovanna. After all, they all cannot be harmed or interacted with to cause damage (The Limitless, Vector Manipulation, GER) thanks to a "Mechanic" (Spatial Manipulation to prevent any contact, Vector Manipulation to prevent or repel any contact, Causality Manipulation to prevent/reset any Contact).
But they AREN'T.
Not because they don't QUALIFY, but because that isn't THEIR POWER.
In fact, if you think about it for more than a minute, the nature of this description makes virtually any power qualify if you squint hard enough. Captain Burns is "invulnerable" because
no one can hit him while he's radiating pure fire from every pore in his skin. So Aizen is "invulnerable" because he tricks the senses, thus no one can ever come into contact with his body because instead they're
hitting their ally like an idiot. So on and so forth. You may be thinking, "that's silly." And you're right. But by all accounts, they qualify, because that's literally how this works mechanically as a standard. And you might be thinking, "ah, but they get hurt
Blank time!"
And you're right. But someone who can Negate Time Stop infinitely can just hit Risaka. Someone who can override "Force Control" can just hit The Siberian. And someone who can hurt "The Concept of America" can hurt someone who is Invulnerable due to AE.
Hell, even in the thread this standard change was posed in, the paradox of this standard took effect. Look no further than Gurren Lagann.
Their Invulnerability was removed, IN THAT THREAD, despite it actually being recognized to function off of a mechanic (probability manipulation), that prevents attacks from taking affect unless YOU MANIPULATE PROBABILITY as well to do damage. As in, a person who fully qualified DID NOT QUALIFY because the MECHANISM is the actual power in QUESTION,
NOT INVULNERABILITY.
Straight up, as far as this Wiki is concerned, Invulnerability does not exist.
Evidence Threshold
The amount of evidence needed to get Invulnerability without this "Mechanism" (IE, NOT INVULNERABILITY) is infinite. Because the Wiki places the Onus on the character being indexed--(when that's never how Indexing has worked, we bend to the stories, not the other way around, or that is to say, if a power is hyper-specific, we index based on our present standards to best match, we do not tell the story it is wrong. And we even literally add pages to account for any specifics, like physiology pages)--It is impossible to prove invulnerability. Even if that is the SIMPLER answer than an eerily specific set of resistances and a passive durability increase compared to what the narrative tells us.
Again, from the Thread, Archie Sonic.
We are told, verbatim, that Super Sonic is invulnerable.
And the amount of proof for it is ridiculous. He's immune to nullification and curses when powering up, reality warping (that works on a multi-dimensional and multiversal scale, rewriting or erasing your existence across all space-time on a quantam, spiritual, and molecular level, affecting memory (while he says he can't affect souls here, this is the regular Genesis Wave, as the Super Genesis Wave can affect Spirits), bypassing immunity, even those decoupled from time, the world of dreams, MaginaryWorld, the Chaos Force, which grants power to Super Sonic to begin with, the Next Evolution, which is the world of Spirits), death manipulation (the Eyes of Solaris kill on contact), magic, and a lot more. In every instance Super Sonic or someone with a Super form appears, they no-sell all hax in his way.
Throughout the whole run, Sonic is only actually harmed in Archie by Dark Gaia, (whose energy is dark and corruptive, and mixed with that of the excess Chaos Energy of the Super Genesis Wave that empowers and was resisted by Super Sonic, which is the comic equivalent of the video game answer to nullifying Super Sonic in Unleashed, which is the exact same thing-Reversing CE polarity), a creature that specifically reverses and undoes the polarity of Chaos Energy with their own.
However, this does not count. None of this counts. (As purported by Agnaa). Because the "mechanism" doesn't exist (read: He is True Invulnerable, or he is the actual power and can only be negated by a specific means of negating Chaos Energy), then instead of using the actual material, which just demonstrates he is repeatedly, to the utmost ridiculous extremes of some of the most ridiculous combination of hax, it is assumed Super Sonic is a stonewall and has random resistances.
And while I understand why, surely you can see how ludicrious that is. You can't prove invulnerability, because proving it is like explaining blue to a blind person. Any level of feat doesn't amount to anything, because you can assume a lesser value than what we are actually told, (Resistance or Durability) even if it requires more hoops than we are actually told: The harnessing reality warping, higher dimensional, magical energy makes you invulnerable.
Additionally, this standard ignores context. For instance, Mario lacks Invulnerability from his Power Star. Instead it's accepted as a Damaging Aura and Stat Amp. Again, I get why. "A statement of invulnerability doesn't mean anything."
I agree.
But there's a significant difference from say, a video game explaining the mechanic of how a power up makes you Invulnerable, versus a random one off guidebook saying the Perfect Susanno is Invulnerable.
The Video Game is just that--A video game. It making you Invulnerable isn't a "hype statement." It's an objective description of the change YOUR INTERACTIVE CHARACTER that inhabits an INTERACTIVE WORLD has gone through, in which no level of damage (or ability) will affect your character.
It assumes all evidence of statements is identical, when this literally doesn't make sense to do. Agnaa himself even earlier in the thread acknowledges how JRPGs literally have invulnerability power ups that don't affect number stats because Invulnerability is a REAL STATUS EFFECT POWER, and how there's a conversation to be had on whether or not that should count (with him still saying no).
I repeat: We are literally watching someone of staff acknowledging that this system can be demonstrably invalid and the result they came to is not to "re-think" how the mechanism clause doesn't make sense--It's to say "Well, nope. I understand how people can disagree, because we're literally seeing the game use Invulnerability as a status effect separate from any durability, but I choose to ignore it...Just because."
But This System FIXES Problems!
Not really. Anyone who is True Invulnerable does not count, and it only indexes people who do not count. The only thing it's removed are NLF statements...which weren't actually an issue if you just analyzed on a case by case basis, as we literally already do for everything else. No, random guidebook statements for a manga don't count, especially if it's proven wrong in the manga (Perfect Susanno). They're just hype. That doesn't mean video games that have True Invulnerability suddenly don't count either. Nor does this mean that people DEMONSTRABLY NOT INVULNERABLE DO.
Now, while I have been criticizing the choice, I understand why it was made. After all, at the time, the ability was being abused, it was vague, and while there are definitely True Invulnerables in fiction, just as it is impossible to prove one IS Invulnerable without the Paradoxical Mechanism, it's ALSO impossible to surely prove someone isn't without it, because many Supporters could just go "Well actually, they have Invulnerability Negation." And then when they get more Durable, it's "Layered Invulnerability." Then when they get hurt again, "Layered Negation." And so on. And even if it's not "contradicted", there's certainly big NLFs that exist. For instance, assuming Super Sonic is Invulnerable, if someone 50 Spatial Dimensions above anything ever shown in Sonic's whole Franchise (regardless of continuity), hits him, why wouldn't he take damage? The answer is there isn't any, because Invulnerability as a power is similar to Luck or Intelligence in stories, where the control of the ability is in the hands of the Author's own whim and not an actual thing that exists beyond that whim.
As such, you just have to look at the original thread to see how this still, ultimately, aided the Wiki in its Indexing by limiting NLFs. So we are in a bit of a spot.
THE TRUE ANSWER
I want to implement a set of standards that actually allow characters who are invulnerable, whilst also accounting for the potential NLFs that can occur in a No-Mechanic World. Ideally, it acknowledges the limitations of both worlds and mixes to create a newer, better one.
INVULNERABILITY
(Insert Armor's Reworded Explanation here)
Type 1 (Status): Those who hold this type of Invulnerability utilize a form of status effect or "hax" that renders them incapable of being harmed conventionally. Typically, these are reserved for characters who use something akin to a "power up" in a video game, or is granted this function by some manner of boon. Users of this are Invulnerable, but not without limit, as they are held to similar standards of Reactive Evolution or Accelerated Development, as it would be a No Limits Fallacy to assume someone with this power can negate any ability or offensive power whatsoever. Its extent and complexity only go as far its feats and scaling have gone for it, in relation up to countermeasures to powers or feats that already exist in the setting or similar, in a case by case basis. Additionally, Durability Negating moves can bypass this unless a character's given form of Invulnerability has demonstrated it can resist that ability.
Note: Statements of Invulnerability are not enough to achieve this outside of specific contexts (such as video game explaining its mechanics or thorough plot explanation that it is truly Invulnerable. For instance, a guidebook hyperbolically stating one is Invulnerable from a third party source would not override they fact they are not and have been harmed without any effort beyond exceeding durability within their narrative.) Even then, in a multi-media video game franchise, if what is Invulnerable in a Video Game is ordinarily overwhelmed in other canon material, it will not be interpreted as Invulnerability. Instead it will be interpreted as Statistics Amplification and Resistances. Additionally, the qualifications of this are stringent. Anti-Feats of any kind are not allowed unless the narrative explains how and why their Invulnerability was bypassed (I.e., Negating the Source of it, or an Invulnerability-Bypassing Hax, and other such extenuating circumstances).
Users
Notice how these Invulnerables are rendered genuinely invulnerable in the confines of their stories, but lack mechanics because the story itself deems the mechanic the harnessing of this power. For instance, Percy Jackson dipping into the Styx has no "explanation" as to the how, beyond he was dipped in the waters of the Styx, which literally grants you Invulnerability short one spot that will destroy you if you get hit. Despite it being an explicit hax ability, in our current system, it would not qualify, because it's True Invulnerable--Not a power that relies on another to function.
And video game characters (or any others that qualify) who have been harmed will have to take onto themselves proving why that happened without disqualifying them from the Standard. I personally think it should be similar to our current R > F standards, in that an Anti-Feat automatically results in a "No," unless explained by the narrative in a sufficient way.
Type 2 (Virtual): Those who hold this type of Invulnerability utilize a specific hax ability that creates a replication of the Status variant. Often, these are characters who do things like freeze their own personal time, causalty, or ability to experience physics, where physical harm is objectively impossible to achieve in any way without directly countering the hax ability used to induce it. These hax abilities are specific to the idea of having harm applied to them in a holistic manner, and are more stringent to achieve a rating for. To this end, it can be assumed to more effective than its own source material/work regardless of force, "conventional" hax, or otherwise, as the manner in which they render themselves Invulnerable is too specific to be bypassed with anything less than a specific counter, though extenuating circumstances, (more potent hax abilities that may function on a superior scale than can be negated/nullified/rendered inert by their defensive ability) may apply.
EX: Such as someone who kills the User in the Past, prior to their Temporal Stasis Invulnerability took affect, killing them in the Present. Or bypassing Invulnerability caused by Manipulation of incoming Vectors by attacking from the inside out and negating the need to interact with the mechanisms that render one Virtually Invulnerable to begin with.
Note: The Mechanic in which this Invulnerability needs to be listed alongside the Invulnerability, explaining the means in which they make themselves Invulnerable, such as this example--
"
Time Manipulation and
Invulnerability: (Character X maintains a completely localized effect of frozen time around their body, making any undesired interaction or sequence of events within the flow of Time physically impossible)."
If this Invulnerability is bypassed in the narrative, list the reason (or if lacking, instance) why in the Weaknesses Section, though given how stringent the requirements of Invulnerability are, having an Anti-Feat of explained (or an explanation beyond deduction) may disqualify the character from gaining the ability entirely.
Users
This then accounts for the Faux Invulnerable (as I've taken to calling them in my head), which then accounts for the multitude of characters who use it as they are now, without causing a massive and unnecessary culling of all of those profiles from having Invulnerability.
The only other recourse than this, in my opinion, is abolishing Invulnerability entirely and treating True Invulnerability like it doesn't exist, rating it similar to other hax abilities we've culled and split into a multifaceted description because of redundancy, and rating the Faux Invulnerables what they really are: "XYZ Users" that simulate Invulnerability.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
