Proposal for Ontological Manipulation ability page creation

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Redacted.

 

[Flashlight237]

I looked it up and basically ontology is the philosophical study of being. Basically what you're suggesting here is the manipulation of the idea of "Why?" whereas Conceptual Manipulation is essentially the manipulation of the idea of "How?"

I suppose @DontTalkDT had a similar idea seeing as how he made a Logic Manipulation thread: https://vsbattles.com/threads/logic-manipulation-ability-page-creation.174784/

Although logic is more like a "How?" than a "Why?" I don't know if we exactly have something dealing with the "Why?" or not. Hmm.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

I looked it up and basically ontology is the philosophical study of being. Basically what you're suggesting here is the manipulation of the idea of "Why?" whereas Conceptual Manipulation is essentially the manipulation of the idea of "How?"

I'm not sure how to exactly answer that, but Ontological Manipulation as a power is meant to deal with manipulating the status of existence itself rather than the mechanisms behind it. I guess it could be interpreted as manipulating the idea of "How?" too?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I guess this is basically the 1-A equivalent of statistics amplification/reduction. But seems fine enough.
One could debate whether to use that name, or try to find something narrower. As it stands, it basically sounds like manipulation of metaphysical aspects in any sense, which would be a unification of basically all abilities making it very catch-all, while the ability primarily focuses on elevating or lowering on a hierarchy of them.

 

[Phoenks]

So, basically, this reads a lot like what I'd call "Essence Manipulation." That being the ability to manipulate the basic "quality," "substance," or "what is is-ness" of a being.

It is a bit similar Conceptual Manipulation, though I think this would be inherently 1-A, like Type 1 used to be, since the philosophy behind this is much more explicit. "Essence" as a concept is pretty geared towards being like that given its objective and more intrinsically fundamental nature of quality.

Seems it could be a qualitative version of dimensional manipulation and statistics manipulation as well.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

It is a bit similar Conceptual Manipulation, though I think this would be inherently 1-A, like Type 1 used to be, since the philosophy behind this is much more explicit. "Essence" as a concept is pretty geared towards being like that given its objective and more intrinsically fundamental nature of quality.

I wouldn't exactly place it as inherently 1-A and above, since I think it could also apply to "base" layer (tier 11 to low 1-A). For example, I'm pretty sure KH has an infinitely layered downward hierarchy from what I've been told, which is why it's characters are as examples under "Users". So, a 3-D or higher being could make someone else inferior same way a 1-A being would make someone else inferior.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

I guess this is basically the 1-A equivalent of statistics amplification/reduction. But seems fine enough.
One could debate whether to use that name, or try to find something narrower. As it stands, it basically sounds like manipulation of metaphysical aspects in any sense, which would be a unification of basically all abilities making it very catch-all, while the ability primarily focuses on elevating or lowering on a hierarchy of them.

I'm fine with a name change if others will want to make it narrower, I just thought "Ontological Manipulation" sounded better than "Existence Manipulation".

 

[Phoenks]

I would suggest either "Essence Manipulation" or "Quality Manipulation," and add that it can manipulate pretty much all metaphysical aspects of being at a very intrinsic level. Since ontology/substance/essence would be more fundamental than those things.

Ontology dictates the order of existential layers and substance, so the ability kinda necessitates some higher-order nature to function, I think. I do see it as one of those 1-A exclusive abilities.

Maybe there's arguments to be had about that, though. That's all I will say for now.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

I would suggest either "Essence Manipulation" or "Quality Manipulation," and add that it can manipulate pretty much all metaphysical aspects of being at a very intrinsic level. Since ontology/substance/essence would be more fundamental than those things.

I added your two alternative name proposals to the OP.

Ontology dictates the order of existential layers and substance, so the ability kinda necessitates some higher-order nature to function, I think. I do see it as one of those 1-A exclusive abilities.

Well, I don't see why a "base" layer (Tier 11 to Low 1-A) couldn't be seen as higher-order from an even lower perspective, after all, hierarchies or layers in fiction don't just go upwards, case-in-point: Kingdom Hearts. Personally I don't want to limit fictions creativity with cosmological levels and inherently disqualify them from this ability just because they aren't 1-A.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I would suggest either "Essence Manipulation" or "Quality Manipulation," and add that it can manipulate pretty much all metaphysical aspects of being at a very intrinsic level.

I'm fine with a name change if others will want to make it narrower, I just thought "Ontological Manipulation" sounded better than "Existence Manipulation".

Existence Manipulation would be even more general.

But yeah, I think an ability that is a fusion of all metaphysical aspect abilities would be too general, personally. I would much prefer to focus on the lowering / raising aspect, while leaving the manipulation of a metaphysical aspect itself to just the corresponding ability in particular.
I guess to throw out some proposal (as bad as it sounds) one could call it "Qualitative Hierarchy Manipulation".

Since ontology/substance/essence would be more fundamental than those things.

I think they would be the things themselves, not (necessarily) more fundamental. Like, concepts (universals) are prime parts of what ontology deals with. (and are a generalization of what we call Qualities since the tiering revision).

 

[FinePoint]

I don't see the benefit in separating this from Statistical Amp/Reduc just because it is of very high scale, and the other application just sounds like Conceptual Manipulation to me. I think it would lead to confusion.

Statistics Reduction reduces the overall parameters of one's opponent, such as physical or magical strength, defense, or speed, to hamper their fighting capabilities.

Our definition of Statistics Reduction is already vague enough to include this.

If anything, why not simply add a note about this to the page as a really high-end example of what the ability could theoretically do?

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

The difference between Ontological Manipulation and Statistics Reduction lies in what is being changed. Statistics Reduction weakens things like strength or speed within the same existential level, while Ontological Manipulation is a qualitative change that transcends numerical differences. It raises or lowers a being’s ontological status, reducing them to a lesser reality or rendering them nonexistent from a higher perspective, rather than just weakening their capabilities. That's why I also added how simplifying it to Statistics Reduction doesn't do it justice in the OP. It's also expanded more in the blog itself.

 

[FinePoint]

The difference between Ontological Manipulation and Statistics Reduction lies in what is being changed. Statistics Reduction weakens things like strength or speed within the same existential level, while Ontological Manipulation is a qualitative change that transcends numerical differences. It raises or lowers a being’s ontological status, reducing them to a lesser reality or rendering them nonexistent from a higher perspective, rather than just weakening their capabilities. That's why I also added how simplifying it to Statistics Reduction doesn't do it justice in the OP. It's also expanded more in the blog itself.

Nothing on the page specifies it has to be purely numerical, nor that it has to be strength or speed within the same existential level.

It just says "reduce" and "parameters".

Therefore, the current description literally includes what you're describing by virtue of it being so vague.

And I simply don't see the logic in us 'doing it justice.'
Why not create an inferior ability for weak uses then because they're 'doing it too much justice'?

A statistic is just a statistic, I don't see what sense of justice it needs.
I don't think it need a fancy name just because someone personally finds it impressive.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Vagueness isn’t a good justification for conflating them. Just because Statistics Reduction is vaguely defined doesn’t mean it should include fundamentally different concepts like Ontological Manipulation, which alters qualitative hierarchy or status, not just power parameters.

---

Anyway, it's almost 1:00 AM for me, so I will answer any further points tomorrow. Good night.

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah I’m not really seeing the point for this to be a page. This feels like statistics amp/reduction and dimensional manipulation slapped together, making it even more redundant of a page.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Good morning. Anyway, back to it.

---

Ontological Manipulation isn't just a statistics amp or dimensional manip, it fundamentally alters qualitative hierarchies and characters.

The reason I still think it should be added, is that you also imply, probably unintentionally and indirectly, that there's no difference between between dimensional manipulation (e.g. 4-D) and 1-A, at least from my perspective.

 

[Agnaa]

This should just be Stat Reduction/Amplification.

"But it alters the character's qualitative hierarchies!"

Which is a statistic.

"But that's way more potent!"

So are all abilities on this scale. They still remain the same abilities.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It is a bit more than stats in so far that physically changing the scale also involves getting resistances (roughly following this logic) and that it involves changing of the character's nature. Like, in a R>F case they go from being a fictional character to being a real character. Or they might go from being physical to being conceptual. And the reverse for downgrading.

 

[Agnaa]

It is a bit more than stats in so far that physically changing the scale also involves getting resistances (roughly following this logic)

Being made stronger/weaker also makes them vulnerable/resilient to certain abilities, even within finite scales.

and that it involves changing of the character's nature. Like, in a R>F case they go from being a fictional character to being a real character.

Yeah, but I think it's fine to just have that be the 1-A equivalent of meaningful stat changes. Although that does come more from the perspective of imagining this happening between different numbers of layers in 1-A, and through escalations/de-escalations in those sorts of power systems.

I think it's ultimately safer to generalise from these outwards to other cases, than it is to generalise from the other cases to those; I don't think someone draining half of an opponent's mana, making them scale to 10,000 fewer layers, should be treated as a particularly distinct ability. (Although that does make me wonder; do we actually allow verses to have power systems that stretch across multiple 1-A levels? Since that seems kinda weird, if the difference between each amount in them is meant to be qualitative)

Or they might go from being physical to being conceptual. And the reverse for downgrading.

If it is shown doing something like this, then you can index that aspect similarly to if that was done without changing the character's strength.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Being made stronger/weaker also makes them vulnerable/resilient to certain abilities, even within finite scales.

This sounds like a false equivalence to me. Stat reduction makes someone weaker within a given ontological framework, while ontological manip change the framework itself, either the layer itself or beings within it to lower levels.

Yeah, but I think it's fine to just have that be the 1-A equivalent of meaningful stat changes. Although that does come more from the perspective of imagining this happening between different numbers of layers in 1-A, and through escalations/de-escalations in those sorts of power systems.

Stats can be measured within a system, while ontological status defines where a being exists in relation to reality itself. Reducing someone from a "real" being to a fictional construct is not just a numerical change, it changes their very nature.

I think it's ultimately safer to generalise from these outwards to other cases, than it is to generalise from the other cases to those; I don't think someone draining half of an opponent's mana, making them scale to 10,000 fewer layers, should be treated as a particularly distinct ability. (Although that does make me wonder; do we actually allow verses to have power systems that stretch across multiple 1-A levels? Since that seems kinda weird, if the difference between each amount in them is meant to be qualitative)

Generalizing stat reduction to include ontological changes is kind of wrong. Stat reduction in lower tiers reduces strength, speed, or durability and etc, whereas ontological shifts alter a more real layer to lower reality. Likewise, comparing the draining of mana to losing ontological layers misunderstands what those layers stand for; if they signify hierarchical superiority, losing them is an existential downgrade, not just a reduction in strength.

If it is shown doing something like this, then you can index that aspect similarly to if that was done without changing the character's strength.

I think this kind of disregards the point. A being turned from a more real to a conceptual one (or vice versa) is an existential transformation, not just a change in strength.

---

I won’t lie, most arguments against Ontological Manipulation just seem like an attempt to keep the vagueness of statistics reduction while including the ability to fundamentally alter a being’s reality or fictionality.

 

[Agnaa]

This sounds like a false equivalence to me. Stat reduction makes someone weaker within a given ontological framework, while ontological manip change the framework itself, either the layer itself or beings within it to lower levels.

That's not a part of the definition.

Stats can be measured within a system, while ontological status defines where a being exists in relation to reality itself.

That's also not a part of the definition.

Reducing someone from a "real" being to a fictional construct is not just a numerical change, it changes their very nature.

I think this kind of disregards the point. A being turned from a more real to a conceptual one (or vice versa) is an existential transformation, not just a change in strength.

Why would you say a numerical change is not part of their nature?

Generalizing stat reduction to include ontological changes is kind of wrong. Stat reduction in lower tiers reduces strength, speed, or durability and etc, whereas ontological shifts alter a more real layer to lower reality.

Why treat those as different?

Likewise, comparing the draining of mana to losing ontological layers misunderstands what those layers stand for; if they signify hierarchical superiority, losing them is an existential downgrade, not just a reduction in strength.

That idea's less compelling when there's a system which stretches across multiple "existential downgrades"; there's a fundamental underpinning stretching across all of them in which they can gain or lose a numerical advantage.

I won’t lie, most arguments against Ontological Manipulation just seem like an attempt to keep the vagueness of statistics reduction while including the ability to fundamentally alter a being’s reality or fictionality.

Yeah. It shouldn't stretch to other applications not shown canonically regardless. And it's the main relevant form of statistics reduction/amplification within those tiers. So why not roll with it?

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

That's not a part of the definition.

The current definition is vague, which is exactly why the difference needs to be made, otherwise, it can imply all reductions are the same. Not to mention I haven't seen it (Stat Reduction) listed for ontological degradation.

That's also not a part of the definition.

Just because it’s not explicitly stated doesn’t mean the distinction shouldn't be made.

Why would you say a numerical change is not part of their nature?

A numerical change affects power within a system, but an ontological change alters what a being fundamentally is. Not to mention I think this distinction (between ontological and numerical change) should be made due to how we treat them in the tiering system:
"Characters or objects residing in higher states of existence surpassing material composition as a whole, and who are therefore completely unreachable and inaccessible to any and all extensions of the aforementioned structures. Their superiority over such realms, as such, is purely "qualitative"; based entirely on the ontological quality and nature of their existence, rather than any quantitative or numerical principle."

Why treat those as different?

Because they operate on different ideas, AFAIK: stat reduction would adjust parameters within a framework, while ontological manipulation would alter the framework itself.

That idea's less compelling when there's a system which stretches across multiple "existential downgrades"; there's a fundamental underpinning stretching across all of them in which they can gain or lose a numerical advantage.

If the system treats existential status as a mere numerical value, it misrepresents what "hierarchical superiority" actually means, qualitative shift.

Yeah. It shouldn't stretch to other applications not shown canonically regardless. And it's the main relevant form of statistics reduction/amplification within those tiers. So why not roll with it?

Because rolling with a vague, catch-all definition lessens important distinctions: clearly separating stat reduction from ontological change allows for better accuracy. Don't know but seems like accuracy is important for an indexing site.

 

[Agnaa]

The current definition is vague, which is exactly why the difference needs to be made, otherwise, it can imply all reductions are the same. Not to mention I haven't seen it (Stat Reduction) listed for ontological degradation.

Just because it’s not explicitly stated doesn’t mean the distinction shouldn't be made.

It could be made. Your idea isn't a logical contradiction, it's just not my preferred method.

A numerical change affects power within a system, but an ontological change alters what a being fundamentally is. Not to mention I think this distinction (between ontological and numerical change) should be made due to how we treat them in the tiering system:
"Characters or objects residing in higher states of existence surpassing material composition as a whole, and who are therefore completely unreachable and inaccessible to any and all extensions of the aforementioned structures. Their superiority over such realms, as such, is purely "qualitative"; based entirely on the ontological quality and nature of their existence, rather than any quantitative or numerical principle."

That's not a good distinction; aspects of one's nature are relevant well before 1-A.

I, generally, don't think there's much point in distinguishing between "changing a character's power in tiers between 11-C and Low 1-A" and "changing a character's power in 11-C, 1-A, and High 1-A". It ends up operating differently, due to the basis of those tiers, but idc too much.

Because they operate on different ideas, AFAIK: stat reduction would adjust parameters within a framework, while ontological manipulation would alter the framework itself.

This doesn't seem to necessarily be true, in either case.

Because rolling with a vague, catch-all definition lessens important distinctions: clearly separating stat reduction from ontological change allows for better accuracy. Don't know but seems like accuracy is important for an indexing site.

I don't see why it's important or more accurate to do it your way.

What misleading impression will we give to people if we include Stat Reduction/Amplification on a High 1-A profile?

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

That's not a good distinction; aspects of one's nature are relevant well before 1-A.

The distinction isn't about whether aspects of one’s nature exist pre-1-A, but rather how those aspects function. In "base layer" (as I've called it before), power changes remain within a given ontological framework, whereas, for example, in higher layers, such as 1-A, ontological status itself is what determines superiority over lower layers.

I, generally, don't think there's much point in distinguishing between "changing a character's power in tiers between 11-C and Low 1-A" and "changing a character's power in 11-C, 1-A, and High 1-A". It ends up operating differently, due to the basis of those tiers, but idc too much.

Acknowledging that it works differently already justifies the distinction. If the mechanics behind these changes differ, then treating them under the same category misrepresents their nature.

This doesn't seem to necessarily be true, in either case.

It kind of is true based on how we define frameworks. Stat reduction changes power within a system, whereas ontological manipulation alters the fundamental structure or existence of that system itself, or as mentioned before, characters and their status as well.

I don't see why it's important or more accurate to do it your way.

Because accuracy means sorting abilities based on their function rather than lumping distinct powers together.

What misleading impression will we give to people if we include Stat Reduction/Amplification on a High 1-A profile?

It could, for example, imply that 1-A superiority is just a matter of finite differences rather than a qualitative transcendence, contradicting the established standard that 1-A is beyond "numerical composition" and "material composition".

 

[Flashlight237]

It is a bit more than stats in so far that physically changing the scale also involves getting resistances (roughly following this logic) and that it involves changing of the character's nature. Like, in a R>F case they go from being a fictional character to being a real character. Or they might go from being physical to being conceptual. And the reverse for downgrading.

I can agree with this, especially given stats are essentially finite numbers while qualitative stuff even on a 2-C level are basically different tiers of Infinity.

 

[Agnaa]

Acknowledging that it works differently already justifies the distinction. If the mechanics behind these changes differ, then treating them under the same category misrepresents their nature.

It works differently in the joule tiers and in the other tiers, yet that doesn't justify the need for a distinction.

It kind of is true based on how we define frameworks. Stat reduction changes power within a system, whereas ontological manipulation alters the fundamental structure or existence of that system itself, or as mentioned before, characters and their status as well.

You wouldn't need to do that, you could just change a character's power within the system of ontological hierarchies.

It could, for example, imply that 1-A superiority is just a matter of finite differences rather than a qualitative transcendence, contradicting the established standard that 1-A is beyond "numerical composition" and "material composition".

I could see similar arguments for things like 1-A Omnipresence, I just don't think it's a meaningful enough difference to merit a whole new page.

I can agree with this, especially given stats are essentially finite numbers while qualitative stuff even on a 2-C level are basically different tiers of Infinity.

We allow stat manip within those regions of the tiering system, and we couldn't consider that sort of thing ontological.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Do I have one more response in my before going to sleep? Well, let's see.

---

It works differently in the joule tiers and in the other tiers, yet that doesn't justify the need for a distinction.

The difference is that the joule tiers still operate within the same physical framework, energy-based calculations. Ontological changes, however, fundamentally change the nature of existence itself, surpassing the measurable system. That’s why a clear distinction is needed.

You wouldn't need to do that, you could just change a character's power within the system of ontological hierarchies.

Changing power within a qualitative hierarchy still assumes the framework remains intact. Ontological manip directly alters the framework itself, fundamentally changing what a being is rather than how powerful they are within that structure.

I could see similar arguments for things like 1-A Omnipresence, I just don't think it's a meaningful enough difference to merit a whole new page.

1-A Omnipresence relates to a being’s presence across higher qualitative space, whereas ontological manipulation affects their entire existential status. Putting them together would blur distinct concepts, undermining clarity needed for accuracy.

---

Anyway, it's past 1:00 AM so I will answer any additional arguments tomorrow. Good night.

 

[Agnaa]

The difference is that the joule tiers still operate within the same physical framework, energy-based calculations. Ontological changes, however, fundamentally change the nature of existence itself, surpassing the measurable system. That’s why a clear distinction is needed.

As I said, infinite energy doesn't really operate within the same physical framework. Hell, we provide different rules for feats outside of it, such as considering erasure an AP feat only in the infinite tiers.

Changing power within a qualitative hierarchy still assumes the framework remains intact. Ontological manip directly alters the framework itself, fundamentally changing what a being is rather than how powerful they are within that structure.

Ontological manipulation would need to be able to cover both. Unless you wanted another third ability.

1-A Omnipresence relates to a being’s presence across higher qualitative space, whereas ontological manipulation affects their entire existential status. Putting them together would blur distinct concepts, undermining clarity needed for accuracy.

Ehh, I figured there'd be 1-A omnipresence that involved the lower parts of reality as well, which does seem like a distinctive thing, and not just "omnipresence across a higher reality's version of space".

Anyway, it's past 1:00 AM so I will answer any additional arguments tomorrow. Good night.

Sleep well.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Sleep well.

Thanks.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Good morning! Back to it, I guess.

---

As I said, infinite energy doesn't really operate within the same physical framework. Hell, we provide different rules for feats outside of it, such as considering erasure an AP feat only in the infinite tiers.

I don't remember you saying this, maybe I haven't woken up properly, but either way, it still adheres to the same physical principles. Ontological changes redefine what a being fundamentally is, as its changing it on completely different levels. So, let's not try to stray too far away please. (Unless you have a more concrete point I am missing.)

Ontological manipulation would need to be able to cover both. Unless you wanted another third ability.

It doesn’t need to cover both because reducing stats within an ontological framework and reshaping the framework itself are fundamentally different actions. One changes position inside a layer, while the other redefines the hierarchy’s structure, or the characters status. Don't think there's a need for a third ability, no.

Ehh, I figured there'd be 1-A omnipresence that involved the lower parts of reality as well, which does seem like a distinctive thing, and not just "omnipresence across a higher reality's version of space".

True, but even then, omnipresence would show presence across different layers, not an alteration of qualitative status, which Ontological Manipulation would.

---

Anyway, it's starting to feel like we keep discussing the same point I have already answered.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't remember you saying this, maybe I haven't woken up properly

Oh yeah sorry, that's what I meant by "joule tiers and the other tiers", mb for unclear wording.

It doesn’t need to cover both because reducing stats within an ontological framework and reshaping the framework itself are fundamentally different actions. One changes position inside a layer, while the other redefines the hierarchy’s structure, or the characters status. Don't think there's a need for a third ability, no.

Why do you think there's not a need for a third ability?

It seems like now you're talking about an ability exclusively for:

• Setting 11-B through Low 1-A characters to 11-C or 1-A/High 1-A, when this involves different ontological frameworks.
• Setting 11-C or 1-A/High 1-A characters to 11-B through Low 1-A, when this involves different ontological frameworks.
• Setting High 1-A characters to a level of High 1-A that represents a different ontological framework.

Which leaves out the, imo fairly similar and important, idea of setting characters to a different level of real-ness within the same ontological framework.

I do also think that "reshaping the ontological framework itself, independent on whether this makes any characters more or less real" is a thing that is kinda different and weird to lump together.

True, but even then, omnipresence would show presence across different layers, not an alteration of qualitative status, which Ontological Manipulation would.

Yeah, Omnipresence is not the same thing as Ontological Manipulation. But the comparison I was drawing is "This needs to be listed as a different ability, because it's beyond composition, because otherwise we're implying that it's a similar finite difference", where I think that same argument could be applied to many abilities on a 1-A scale, such as Omnipresence.

Anyway, it's starting to feel like we keep discussing the same point I have already answered.

Yeah I'll stop responding to points that feel like that.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Why do you think there's not a need for a third ability?

Because changing power within an ontological framework (i.e., stat reduction) is fundamentally different from changing the framework itself, or the characters status. (ontological manipulation).

It seems like now you're talking about an ability exclusively for:

• Setting 11-B through Low 1-A characters to 11-C or 1-A/High 1-A, when this involves different ontological frameworks.
• Setting 11-C or 1-A/High 1-A characters to 11-B through Low 1-A, when this involves different ontological frameworks.
• Setting High 1-A characters to a level of High 1-A that represents a different ontological framework.

Which leaves out the, imo fairly similar and important, idea of setting characters to a different level of real-ness within the same ontological framework.

I do also think that "reshaping the ontological framework itself, independent on whether this makes any characters more or less real" is a thing that is kinda different and weird to lump together.

Changing a character’s realness within an ontological structure still reflects a qualitative raise/degradation in their nature, not just a numerical change, so it would remain within the scope of ontological manipulation. Maybe "Limited" could be attached to that, like pretty much every ability can have that attached.

Yeah, Omnipresence is not the same thing as Ontological Manipulation. But the comparison I was drawing is "This needs to be listed as a different ability, because it's beyond composition, because otherwise we're implying that it's a similar finite difference", where I think that same argument could be applied to many abilities on a 1-A scale, such as Omnipresence.

While omnipresence shows presence across layers and structures, it does not redefine a being’s inherent nature. Equating that with ontological manipulation blurs the distinction between spatial presence and the qualitative change in existence.

 

[Agnaa]

Because changing power within an ontological framework (i.e., stat reduction) is fundamentally different from changing the framework itself, or the characters status. (ontological manipulation).

Changing a character’s realness within an ontological structure still reflects a qualitative raise/degradation in their nature, not just a numerical change, so it would remain within the scope of ontological manipulation. Maybe "Limited" could be attached to that, like pretty much every ability can have that attached.

These two sentiments seem to contradict. Yeah, it changes their nature, not just a number, but it doesn't change the framework itself.

And I think it's generally a bad idea to create an ability where most users of it would only have a Limited form.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

These two sentiments seem to contradict. Yeah, it changes their nature, not just a number, but it doesn't change the framework itself.

I don't think they don’t contradict. Changing a character’s realness still reflects a qualitative change in their existence, which falls under ontological manipulation (limited here), even if the framework would remain intact. While full ontological manipulation would change them completely. (e.g. a 1-A character could have its existence entirely reduced to, for example, 3-D, even if it originally resided in a qualitatively higher layer, effectively rendering it nonexistent due to how R>F works now)

And I think it's generally a bad idea to create an ability where most users of it would only have a Limited form.

Most users would probably have the full ability since, in most fictions I've come across, characters either fully change ontological status (like becoming fictional from a higher perspective and vice versa (vice versa, obviously, being a higher being raising them, rather than on their own, but I think I'm overthinking this)) or don’t experience any such change to begin with. Actually, I don't think I've come across any verse where they only slightly alter a character's realness.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think they don’t contradict. Changing a character’s realness still reflects a qualitative change in their existence, which falls under ontological manipulation (limited here), even if the framework would remain intact. While full ontological manipulation would change them completely. (e.g. a 1-A character could have its existence entirely reduced to, for example, 3-D, even if it originally resided in a qualitatively higher layer, effectively rendering it nonexistent due to how R>F works now)

Most users would probably have the full ability since, in most fictions I've come across, characters either fully change ontological status (like becoming fictional from a higher perspective and vice versa (vice versa, obviously, being a higher being raising them, rather than on their own, but I think I'm overthinking this)) or don’t experience any such change to begin with. Actually, I don't think I've come across any verse where they only slightly alter a character's realness.

Oh, I'm not talking about a slight change of realness, I'm trying to draw a distinction between:

• Changing real-ness of a thing, while operating within the same ontological framework (i.e. a stack of narratives, going upwards and downwards endlessly, with a character who can raise/lower characters a few levels).
• Changing real-ness of a thing, moving them across ontological frameworks (i.e. removing/adding some divine spark, so they no longer participate in that system of ontological boosts).
• Changing real-ness of things, by altering the ontological framework (i.e. instead of altering a character's qualities, and having the system treat them differently as a result, change how the system treats everything with certain qualities).

Each of these could result in jumps into or out of 1-A, but some operate in ways different from the ability you're trying to describe. It sounds like your ability is going for the third.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Snip

I can see the distinctions you’re drawing, but I think they can still fall under the broader ontological manipulation, with different forms or applications rather than entirely separate abilities.

1. Changing realness within the same ontological framework (raising or lowering characters within a qualitative layer) would still qualify as a limited ontological manipulation. It changes a character’s qualitative status relative to the framework, even if the framework itself remains untouched. While the system exists, the character’s place within it can undergo somewhat meaningful ontological change.
2. Moving across ontological layers would be full ontological manipulation, as it actively transitions the character’s existence between fundamentally different frameworks. This changes their status in entirely different existential systems.
3. Changing the ontological framework itself and the characters status, which is the focus of my definition, would be the "full" form of ontological manipulation. Instead of just modifying entities within the system, this directly reshapes the foundational structure and characters themselves.

My point here is that all three cases are variations of ontological manipulation, some differing in scope and limitation, rather than existing as wholly separate abilities. The limited add-on would encompass these differences without splitting up the idea unnecessarily, in my opinion.

So, wouldn't creating entirely separate pages for the abilities for each variation overcomplicate things, especially since all fundamentally are about altering existence itself at different scales? I still think everything I've proposed in the OP is fine.

 

[Agnaa]

I didn't really want a different ability, as I said earlier:

Ontological manipulation would need to be able to cover both. Unless you wanted another third ability.

Now that you're saying it covers both, that's alright.

My earlier point is that most of that just makes sense as stat reduction. I'd put the first two as stat amp/reduction, and the third as law manip.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Now that you're saying it covers both, that's alright.

Just woke up so my vision is still a bit blurry, but can I take this as an agreement with the CRT, then?

 

[Agnaa]

Just woke up so my vision is still a bit blurry, but can I take this as an agreement with the CRT, then?

No.

My earlier point is that most of that just makes sense as stat reduction. I'd put the first two as stat amp/reduction, and the third as law manip.

While I still disagree, I am happy that I've pushed your suggestion into something more reasonable.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

No.

Ah, I see. Then I'll respond in full a bit later when I'm properly woken up.