Should Saitama even be used in match ups?

[Jorus_C'baoth]

Hypothetical fights that pits characters from different universes (even those from the same universe) can be a tricky thing. People who love to discuss things like that often have to rely on assumptions, pseudo-scientific "calculations", or imprecise scaling. But every once in awhile, it can be easy.
Like the case of using Saitama in a hypothetical match-up. Easy, because he should win all of the time.

Is that presumptious? or "wanking" as users of these kind of forums like to say? Maybe. Personally I don't think so. The simple reason being that Saitama is not an ordinary character. Whether you want to consider him a parody, satire, or subversion meant to poke fun at standard cliches and tropes associated with action mangas and anime, what he is, is the embodiment of a concept. The concept of being "indomitable". That's how he was conceived by the author. The humor, tragedy, and drama relating to this character is that the only struggle he face is internal.

With Saitama, the question is never "how can Saitama beat this character?" instead it's "How much trouble can this character give Saitama before they get owned in a spectacular, ridiculous, or comical fashion?"

Maybe some of you will think this falls in the realm of "no limits fallacy", but perhaps you should also consider whether in your reluctance to accept that a fictional character indeed has no limits, you arbitrarily impose those limits yourself upon that character, just because. Assuming that a character "has to have limits" may be a fallacy in itself, especially considering what he is meant to be.

Being indomitable is Saitama's most prominent feature. That is what separates him conceptually from any other garden variety OP characters. Until such time as the author decide that he can be threatened with a loss (beyond those intended for comedy) or mortal danger, he will continue to remain that way.

You can put him in a hypothetical scenario where you impose arbitrary limits upon him. But by taking away the one characteristic that is truly inextricable from him, it won't really be "Saitama".

So that is essentially the reason why I ask. Because I personally don't see why.

On the other hand, since these match-ups basically amount to fan-fiction anyway, those who want to see him in a hypothetical match-up should be free to fan-fic away. But perhaps he belongs more in the jokes section.

 

[Greatsage13th]

...you...did not need to write a passionate thesis about Saitama's narrative here.

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

Why?

 

[Baken384]

gurren lagann solos

 

[Nullflowerblush]

I was told that I cannot swear at other members, but dammit, I really want to.

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

I was told that I cannot swear at other members, but dammit, I really want to.

If you meant me, feel free to do it through PM

 

[Metalballrun]

I mean, he's got a point though. Except it doesn't apply just to Saitama. It applies to all characters.

So in conclusion, using OP's logic we should just stop versus debating entirely. Because every character has a purpose and meaning, and using them in versus debates apparently invalidates that. Shut down the wiki, shut down all the debates. Maybe we will all get better hobbies afterwards.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Why?

It:s irrelevant to vs debates except for SCP.

 

[Baken384]

Maybe some of you will think this falls in the realm of "no limits fallacy", but perhaps you should also consider whether in your reluctance to accept that a fictional character indeed has no limits, you arbitrarily impose those limits yourself upon that character, just because. Assuming that a character "has to have limits" may be a fallacy in itself, especially considering what he is meant to be.

My boy Simon The Digger can finally reach Outerversal with this shit logic

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

It:s irrelevant to vs debates except for SCP.

What specifically is irrelevant? My opinion? Which part?

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

My boy Simon The Digger can finally reach Outerversal with this shit logic

He might, I don't know enough about him. Is being unbeatable the way his author wrote him?

 

[Greatsage13th]

What specifically is irrelevant? My opinion? Which part?

Saitama's narrative. Is irrelevant in a vs debate.

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

So in conclusion, using OP's logic we should just stop versus debating entirely. Because every character has a purpose and meaning, and using them in versus debates apparently invalidates that. Shut down the wiki, shut down all the debates.

That's not what I said. Most of the characters I've read in works of fiction are not created with being "unbeatable" as their defining features. If they were, then maybe they belong to a similar classification as Saitama.

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

Saitama's narrative. Is irrelevant in a vs debate.

I'm not familiar with the forum's lingo. What do you mean he is "narrative", and how is that an explanation for invalidating my opinion?

 

[Tyranno223]

This logic can be applied to most protagonists in fiction.

Against the Living Tribunal, Goku may be beaten up a few times, but he will eventually reach a level of power in the fight that lets him beat the guy even if he dies doing it.

Superman can destroy Azathoth because the former is a hero who will save the day no matter what.

Sauron loses to a real world dog becausw evil inevitably destroys itself according to Tolkien.

Character purposes have little place in a vs debate, especially since the last chapter showed us Saitama does have limits, even if his growth in power is massive.

 

[Orioreeem]

Here is a character that is similar to the way Saitama is portrayed AKA he will never lose, so when you put them in a fight who wins?

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

This logic can be applied to most protagonists in fiction.

Against the Living Tribunal, Goku may be beaten up a few times, but he will eventually reach a level of power in the fight that lets him beat the guy even if he dies doing it.

Superman can destroy Azathoth because the former is a hero who will save the day no matter what.

Sauron loses to a real world dog becausw evil inevitably destroys itself according to Tolkien.

Character purposes have little place in a vs debate, especially since the last chapter showed us Saitama does have limits, even if his growth in power is massive.

I'm not sure if the logic applies the same to other characters like Superman, or the likes. That they will always prevail is a given, but simply for the continuity of the story or the franchise. Not because their in-universe trait makes them unbeatable. Superman's been hurt, has weaknesses, and there has never been in any sense communicated whether implicitly or explicitly that he is unbeatable.

I don't see how the "character purpose" argument disregards his traits. My understanding from this is that you're insinuating because of the way he was written, either as a joke, or as a plot device, it disqualifies him from being taken seriously? If that's the case, that actually reinforces my question. Maybe he shouldn't be in the normal VS section, but the joke battle instead.

..especially since the last chapter showed us Saitama does have limits, even if his growth in power is massive.
I never said he was limitless or omnipotent. But what it shows to me (and I know I'm not the only one who thinks this) is that he is simply going to be as strong as he needs to be. Any character who is inherently written this way (aside from the purpose of franchise continuation) will fall under a similar category.

 

[Tyranno223]

I'm not sure if the logic applies the same to other characters like Superman, or the likes. That they will always prevail is a given, but simply for the continuity of the story or the franchise. Not because their in-universe trait makes them unbeatable. Superman's been hurt, has weaknesses, and there has never been any sense communicated whether implicitly or explicitly that he is unbeatable.

I don't see how the "character purpose" argument disregards his traits. My understanding from this is that you're insinuating because of the way he was written, either as a joke, or as a plot device, it disqualifies him from being taken seriously? If that's the case, that actually reinforces my question. Maybe he shouldn't be in the normal VS section, but the joke battle instead.

..especially since the last chapter showed us Saitama does have limits, even if his growth in power is massive.
I never said he was limitless or omnipotent. But what it shows to me (and I know I'm not the only one who thinks this) is that he is simply going to be as strong as he needs to be. Any character who is inherently written this way (aside from the purpose of franchise continuation) will fall under a similar category.

Any character is as strong as they need tp be, they're fictional. Goku can magically grow to the level of Jiren over the course of a few minutes, Superman can threaten the universe by flying too fast only to be to slow to catch bullets etc. Saitama isn't unique, and we have gag characters on here like Arale anyway and characters who were mamdated to be unable to lose like Archie Sonic. He isn't going to be banned from vs debates.

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

Here is a character that is similar to the way Saitama is portrayed AKA he will never lose, so when you put them in a fight who wins?

I don't know enough about the character. But assuming that the whole essence of his character is to never know struggle or defeat, then it would be inconclusive.

 

[Shmooply]

I really don't see the point in having this discussion. "It goes against this character's narrative" is to people who don't like powerscaling what Pascal's Wager is to religious people, and this argument has existed basically since powerscaling's inception. It doesn't matter if John Mcanthur, the protagonist of a popular series of books, is unbeatable in his story, when he has no way to counter the death and matter hax of some protagonist of an obscure video game from the 80s barely anybody remembers.

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

Any character is as strong as they need tp be, they're fictional.

Yes. For the purpose of the continuation of the franchise. The question is, within the universe's own rules and internal logic (or whatever you want to call it), does the character have any vulnerabilities, can the character die, has the character ever hit a wall that they can only surpass through the typical trope of "training" or "struggling", expending inhuman amount of effort, or through "unrelenting spirit" or some such? If so, I would argue they're not the same.

Saitama isn't unique, and we have gag characters on here like Arale anyway and characters who were mamdated to be unable to lose like Archie Sonic. He isn't going to be banned from vs debate

I never said they should be banned. The title of my post was framed as a question, the body of my post was the reasoning behind why my question came to be. If these characters are jokes or gags, and not to be taken seriously, why are they not in the joke battle instead?

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

I really don't see the point in having this discussion. "It goes against this character's narrative" is to people who don't like powerscaling what Pascal's Wager is to religious people, and this argument has existed basically since powerscaling's inception. It doesn't matter if John Mcanthur, the protagonist of a popular series of books, is unbeatable in his story, when he has no way to counter the death and matter hax of some protagonist of an obscure video game from the 80s barely anybody remembers.

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to ask the question and have a conversation about it. You don't have to be a part of it. Just don't tell me that I'm not allowed to talk about it.

 

[Ovrhide]

No. Nothing else to say.

“It’s my opinion” it’s an invalid argument.

 

[Shmooply]

Ovrhide simplified what I was going to say.
I would be fine with it being your opinion if it were in literally any other place, but the fact you're using this argument in a site that's entirely dedicated to powerscaling and character matchups is just odd.

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

Ovrhide simplified what I was going to say.
I would be fine with it being your opinion if it were in literally any other place, but the fact you're using this argument in a site that's entirely dedicated to powerscaling and character matchups is just odd.

Then call me odd. That's fine too. I'm just looking for a discussion in a Discussion forum
Anyone who shares the opinion that my post was pointless, stupid, nonsensical, etc, is encouraged to ignore me and my post. On the other hand, I invite those with an open and generous mindset to discuss the questions and points that I've posed in a civil way

 

[KatBoi69]

Hypothetical fights that pits characters from different universes (even those from the same universe) can be a tricky thing. People who love to discuss things like that often have to rely on assumptions, pseudo-scientific "calculations", or imprecise scaling. But every once in awhile, it can be easy.
Like the case of using Saitama in a hypothetical match-up. Easy, because he should win all of the time.

Is that presumptious? or "wanking" as users of these kind of forums like to say? Maybe. Personally I don't think so. The simple reason being that Saitama is not an ordinary character. Whether you want to consider him a parody, satire, or subversion meant to poke fun at standard cliches and tropes associated with action mangas and anime, what he is, is the embodiment of a concept. The concept of being "indomitable". That's how he was conceived by the author. The humor, tragedy, and drama relating to this character is that the only struggle he face is internal.

With Saitama, the question is never "how can Saitama beat this character?" instead it's "How much trouble can this character give Saitama before they get owned in a spectacular, ridiculous, or comical fashion?"

Maybe some of you will think this falls in the realm of "no limits fallacy", but perhaps you should also consider whether in your reluctance to accept that a fictional character indeed has no limits, you arbitrarily impose those limits yourself upon that character, just because. Assuming that a character "has to have limits" may be a fallacy in itself, especially considering what he is meant to be.

Being indomitable is Saitama's most prominent feature. That is what separates him conceptually from any other garden variety OP characters. Until such time as the author decide that he can be threatened with a loss (beyond those intended for comedy) or mortal danger, he will continue to remain that way.

You can put him in a hypothetical scenario where you impose arbitrary limits upon him. But by taking away the one characteristic that is truly inextricable from him, it won't really be "Saitama".

So that is essentially the reason why I ask. Because I personally don't see why.

On the other hand, since these match-ups basically amount to fan-fiction anyway, those who want to see him in a hypothetical match-up should be free to fan-fic away.

Isn't arguing about Saitama being a gag character and having no limits an instant ban/thread deletion or something?

Edit: yeah, I think this qualifies under the OPM discussion rules...https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Discussion_Rules

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

Isn't arguing about Saitama being a gag character and having no limits an instant ban/thread deletion or something?

Then report me and let the mods decide.
My post was essentially a question with context as to why the question came to be. It's actually quite simple, should he be taken seriously or a joke character on account of how he was written ? If he's a joke character then why does it seem like every single one of his feats or lack there-of seem to be the subject of heated discussion taken seriously, instead of putting it in the joke section?

If asking questions like these is subject for deletion, so be it. From the reaction I'm getting it seems I may have pissed people off. You don't typically get the kind of derision and passive-aggressive reaction I've been getting unless I hit a nerve.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

The lad just wants to have a conversation guys... like something one does over tea break on all kinds of topics with friends and family.
Be good sports.

 

[Zencha9]

Nah get banned lol lmao even

 

[RedReaper616]

I'm not sure if the logic applies the same to other characters like Superman, or the likes. That they will always prevail is a given, but simply for the continuity of the story or the franchise. Not because their in-universe trait makes them unbeatable. Superman's been hurt, has weaknesses, and there has never been in any sense communicated whether implicitly or explicitly that he is unbeatable.

I don't see how the "character purpose" argument disregards his traits. My understanding from this is that you're insinuating because of the way he was written, either as a joke, or as a plot device, it disqualifies him from being taken seriously? If that's the case, that actually reinforces my question. Maybe he shouldn't be in the normal VS section, but the joke battle instead.

..especially since the last chapter showed us Saitama does have limits, even if his growth in power is massive.
I never said he was limitless or omnipotent. But what it shows to me (and I know I'm not the only one who thinks this) is that he is simply going to be as strong as he needs to be. Any character who is inherently written this way (aside from the purpose of franchise continuation) will fall under a similar category.

I have no stake in this, but saying Superman isn't in this list is a flat out lie.

There's a whole plot point where Cosmic Armor Superman comes into play that his power is revealed to be what's basically called the Superman Archetype, where the very NARRATIVE, STORY, PLOT, (whatever you want to call it), will amp up the character to be able to handle and win against his opponent. They even use terms like "hyper-stories." Like, CA.Superman blatantly would walk in, rock Saitama's shit by "overriding his Hyper-Story," and walk out without wasting a breathe. He literally fights an opponent who does the exact same as himself too, btw, so it's not just "an unknowable match," either.

Mind you, ONE has gone out of his way to specifically akin Saitama as a "Level 100 character in a Level 10 Character" environment. Or to be exact, a character at the end of his power growth/story, placed at the BEGINNING.

There's no in verse statement of Saitama's "story" or "Narrative," existing as a feature of his POWERS.

This is a phenomenon known ONLY TO THE AUDIENCE as the punchline to the joke. (IE Dramatic Irony.)

So in effect, his "Narrative Power," doesn't actually exist. It's a preconception based on the joke.

Whereas CAS (whose power is "The SUPERMAN ARCHETYPE,") literally has said power written in the fine print.

This is an interesting discussion though.

 

[Jorus_C'baoth]

I have no stake in this, but saying Superman isn't in this list is a flat out lie.

There's a whole plot point where Cosmic Armor Superman comes into play that his power is revealed to be what's basically called the Superman Archetype, where the very NARRATIVE, STORY, PLOT, (whatever you want to call it), will amp up the character to be able to handle and win against his opponent. They even use terms like "hyper-stories." Like, CA.Superman blatantly would walk in, rock Saitama's shit by "overriding his Hyper-Story," and walk out without wasting a breathe. He literally fights an opponent who does the exact same as himself too, btw, so it's not just "an unknowable match," either.

If this version of Superman is as you describe I have no problem putting it in a similar category.
My post was more about questioning the "type of character" and their use in hypothetical battles, as opposed to the character himself. Saitama just happens to be an example I'm familiar with. I'm consistent that way. This isn't any attempt at pushing him up the ranks or any such thing. I have little interest in how my thoughts affect a character's standing in this forum. The point of my post was purely for discussion because I'm curious as to what people make of it.

 

[SuperStar]

I was told that I cannot swear at other members, but dammit, I really want to.

Which is why we use discord

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

The point of my post was purely for discussion because I'm curious as to what people make of it.

Thing is, your stance inadvertently forces limits on other verses when you say "Characters with narrative power of always winning" are put up against other characters.
Most if not all Protagonists win in the end because plot decided it, no matter what caveat it comes with.

Almost every character has some kind of narrative gimmick. At that point the debate becomes whether those gimmicks counter each other. Which is tbh is least of this wiki's concerns as far as formal day to day work of indexing and debating is concerned.

As far as fun and games debates is concerned, such stuff always comes down to subjective opinion aas far as I have seen. So winning comes down to which side is more popular and charismatic in arguing their preference.

 

[RedReaper616]

If this version of Superman is as you describe I have no problem putting it in a similar category.
My post was more about questioning the "type of character" and their use in hypothetical battles, as opposed to the character himself. Saitama just happens to be an example I'm familiar with. I'm consistent that way. This isn't any attempt at pushing him up the ranks or any such thing. I have little interest in how my thoughts affect a character's standing in this forum. The point of my post was purely for discussion because I'm curious as to what people make of it.

Well, I think the best way to consider Saitama's, in comparison to someone like CAS, is not "limitless, will win as needed." In the recent chapter, Saitama's strength had to GROW. He BLED. He's also made statements like "I don't think I can get stronger."

He's explicitly placing actual limits on himself and the story is as well.

Of course, the audience knows Saitama will win because of the joke, and how he's written. Thus, his joke is dramatic irony. Not something as specific as "narrative/plot/fate manip to always win." The "Joke," is he always wins, but that's not an in-character power.

 

[SheevShezarrine]

He might, I don't know enough about him. Is being unbeatable the way his author wrote him?

He can be beaten technically, but he's written to bounce right back and btfo whoever had him on the ropes. So he never stays down and just beefs up to match the challenge

 

[SheevShezarrine]

This logic can be applied to most protagonists in fiction.

Against the Living Tribunal, Goku may be beaten up a few times, but he will eventually reach a level of power in the fight that lets him beat the guy even if he dies doing it.

Superman can destroy Azathoth because the former is a hero who will save the day no matter what.

Sauron loses to a real world dog becausw evil inevitably destroys itself according to Tolkien.

Character purposes have little place in a vs debate, especially since the last chapter showed us Saitama does have limits, even if his growth in power is massive.

He has limits, but he gives no ***** about them and they may as well not exist cuz he just keeps pushing them higher and higher when a situation gives him the stimuli to do so

 

[Iiliminal]

My boy Simon The Digger can finally reach Outerversal with this shit logic

immense lowball, Simon is above tiering with absolute transcendence and meta miracle

 

[SheevShezarrine]

That's not what I said. Most of the characters I've read in works of fiction are not created with being "unbeatable" as their defining features. If they were, then maybe they belong to a similar classification as Saitama.

He's not unbeatable, he just can't be evenly matched by or overpowered by anyone else. He starts and spends much of his time in the series in a state of constant defeat because he achieved his dream only to find out it wasn't as satisfying as he thought. Hell, even though he kicks Garou's ass, he still basically loses until Garou repents and teaches him time travel; he worked to become the ultimate hero but he didn't do as a hero should, he didn't save anyone, and he admits that he just isn't cut out to be a hero. He failed to save the day, Garou still murdered Genos and killed several people from the radiation he gave off. Hell, he and Saitama would've ended up killing everyone on Earth if Blast weren't there.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Yeah, Saitama doesn't have any narrative blessing of "always one punch", he just happens to be in a pnd of small fish while he is relatively bigger than all of them.

Same can be said of all OP characters in fiction w.r.t their own verses. Nothing that is useful in a cross fictional debate.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

This wiki just indexes the things that can be indexed which by itself is hardly arbitrary though you can argue about the standards that should be applied. The narrative only really matters when it is about matters within the fictional universe it belongs to. Just because Saitama is pretty much invincible inside his verse doesn't mean that this is also true if you consider all of fiction and we can only really index the things that he has done and that were stated without getting into questionable territory. This means in effect that Saitama loses against characters that are way beyond anything he has ever faced or his verse has to offer in matches because there is nothing that would prove that he could handle it.

Arguing that Saitama would win because of the narrative behind his character would simply ignore any arguments in favor of a character against Saitama no matter how thought-out or nuanced they are which would get in the way of any constructive discussion. This narrative argument would at the very least need to offer a significant amount of details and evidence instead of a vague thing like that Saitama just wins because of plot which would be valid if Saitama had Plot Manipulation but that isn't the case and could still be countered by characters with the right abilities.

Even if the author of a character thinks of their character as completely invincible, if they aren't really involved in debating or don't have any particular interest in powerscaling, then they are most likely unfamiliar with Tier 1 and 0 shenanigans which can get seriously complicated and if the author is involved in that sort of debating, then we need to seriously consider what the intentions behind the character are and if there is any real substance and quality in the writing of that character. Characters that cannot lose no matter what purely because that is what they are supposed to be regardless of any other details would be seriously out of place in any powerscaling discussion.

Saitama as a character is more than a joke, so I feel like as if reducing him to just that would be unfair to him. He is part of a story where people can have serious problems and develop and Saitama gets his own moments that aren't played for laughs and not all of them are related to his strength. Even if everything there is about Saitama was a joke he would still have a place in VS Battles because he comes from a notable fictional storyline with a coherent narrative and that wouldn't automatically get him any special treatment that other characters don't get due to not being jokes.