Strange Man (RDR): Abilities Fixing and Revisions

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

The P&A on the Strange Man page lacks references and videos, and curse manipulation via Armadillo curse is repeated twice.
Why were the videos from this CRT not used for the profile?

To talk about this CRT, there are things with which I do not agree but I did not have the time to give my opinion (only for Abstract Existence):

Type 4 Acausality, Causality and Death Manipulation. The Strange Man is unable to be foreseen by the precognition of the Blind Man and stated to be "not of this world." Whenever John attempted to fire at The Strange Man, he exchanged the 3 bullets fired by John for 3 death's, that of John, Abigail and Uncle with the 4th bullet being jammed signifying Jack would be spared.

I don't see Acausality here, just limited Resistance to Precognition, and the blind man doesn't say he can't see the Strange Man because he comes from another world, there is no confirmed correlation there. The case of the three deaths looks much more like Fate Manipulation than Causality Manipulation. The Strange Man didn't literally reflect bullets at John, Abigail and Uncle, at least there's no evidence (implicit or explicit) of that, it just looks like fate stuff.

 

[Cropfist]

I agree with this.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Strange Man should possibly have dimensional travel, since he comes from another world.

 

[LordGinSama]

Most of this looks fine, Causality and fate manipulation are already similar in function so it's not a big deal.


As for Type 4 Acausality the Blind Man literally refers to the Strange Man as "not of this world."

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

As for Type 4 Acausality the Blind Man literally refers to the Strange Man as "not of this world."

Coming from another world doesn't give you Acausality

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Bump

 

[LordGinSama]

Coming from another world doesn't give you Acausality

It actually does. Being from another world separate from the mortal world would mean he runs on a different system of causality.


There's also blatant correlation there with the Blind Man. He states he can't see anything regarding the Strange Man, then follows it up by saying he isn't of this world. His precognition is tied to the mortal world, the Strange Man comes from another world.

 

[Spectra_Schiffer]

looks good

 

[Hellbeast]

While I'm here, why does the Strange Man have Law Manipulation? The justifications solely prove "Curse Manipulation and Disease Manipulation". I'm also not a fan of Abstract Existence, him implied to be death isn't proof enough that he's an abstract entity considering we have versions of Death on the Wiki who aren't abstract in nature.

 

[LordGinSama]

While I'm here, why does the Strange Man have Law Manipulation? The justifications solely prove "Curse Manipulation and Disease Manipulation"

Because he formed a contract with the shop keeper so he could avoid being effected. Makima has Law Manipulation for the same exact reasons, this isn't a problem. He's forming a contract with someone with a set Law and condition.

I'm also not a fan of Abstract Existence, him implied to be death isn't proof enough that he's an abstract entity considering we have versions of Death on the Wiki who aren't abstract in nature.

Big difference. First of all this is a major what aboutism, secondly appeal to disbelief isn't an argument Hellbeast. Currently he has it as a likely / possibly so it isn't a concrete rating for this explicit reason. We give out those types of ratings for a reason, for things that aren't 100% clear but have strong implications we label them as likely and possibly. Stop ignoring this, it's getting increasingly annoying to read the same nonsensical argument from you. "I don't think...." isn't an argument. Death from Puss And Boots has the same thing for the same reason. I.E being an omnipresent being with nigh omniscient that stalks people who are close to death.


Death from Dark Stalkers isn't the actual death and the profile makes that abundantly clear. He doesn't come to those who are near death unlike the Strange Man, doesn't stalk people on death's door, doesn't have knowledge when people will die, etc. Dante's Inferno is also being revised so that comparison is irrelevant. Furthermore hes only an incarnation of death so that's a false comparison.


Last one isn't even death he's an elemental spirit. Death is just it's name. He doesn't embody death, he's an elemental spirit with soul manipulation that's it.


Ultimately you have zero arguments against the rating aside from argument from disbelief which isn't legitimate. Abstract Existence for the Strange Man isn't concrete, hence why it's not a full rating. The profile literally takes your argument into consideration.

Unlike the others The Strange Man is a omnipresent, nigh omniscient being that quite literally stalks those on the verge of death and is stated for verbatim to be an accountant of the sorts. Death is an accountant of the devil, collecting and harvesting souls. Unlike the examples you've given he's strongly implied to be death itself unlike the rest you've linked, hence why it's labeled as "likely." It already considers this argument which is why it isn't a full rating.

Honestly form a new argument instead of commenting the same debunked argument over and over again. It's a likely / possibly rating for a reason to which you consistently ignore to fit your own agenda.

 

[Hellbeast]

Firstly Lord, I'm going to ask you to speak a lil more respectfully since I've not come after you at all in this way and the attitude is frankly unjustified

Because he formed a contract with the shop keeper so he could avoid being effected. Makima has Law Manipulation for the same exact reasons, this isn't a problem. He's forming a contract with someone with a set Law and condition.

Again, I'm going to have to ask for something more substantial here since all we know is the Strange Man protected the shopkeeper from dying, I've read the page for Law Manipulation and I'm not seeing much supporting this use. I'm not too familiar with Makima's justification so I can't comment too much on that.

Because he formed a contract with the shop keeper so he could avoid being effected. Makima has Law Manipulation for the same exact reasons, this isn't a problem. He's forming a contract with someone with a set Law and condition.

Big difference. First of all this is a major what aboutism, secondly appeal to disbelief isn't an argument Hellbeast. Currently he has it as a likely / possibly so it isn't a concrete rating for this explicit reason. We give out those types of ratings for a reason, for things that aren't 100% clear but have strong implications we label them as likely and possibly. Stop ignoring this, it's getting increasingly annoying to read the same nonsensical argument from you. "I don't think...." isn't an argument. Death from Puss And Boots has the same thing for the same reason. I.E being an omnipresent being with nigh omniscient that stalks people who are close to death.


Death from Dark Stalkers isn't the actual death and the profile makes that abundantly clear. He doesn't come to those who are near death unlike the Strange Man, doesn't stalk people on death's door, doesn't have knowledge when people will die, etc. Dante's Inferno is also being revised so that comparison is irrelevant. Furthermore hes only an incarnation of death so that's a false comparison.


Last one isn't even death he's an elemental spirit. Death is just it's name. He doesn't embody death, he's an elemental spirit with soul manipulation that's it.

1) No, Death (Puss in Boots) has Abstract Existence because he straight up tells you "I am the 100% embodiment of death lol". 2) Darksiders Death is the actual Death, he's called the Reaper, he manipulates souls on multiple occasions, rides the Pale Horse as per the Bible and even has a quest where he has to prove he is actual Death. The issuee of the matter is he isn't an abstract being and unless I see better evidence for the Strange Man (aside from "he's implied to be death") I'm going to assume he's a smilar case. 3) I'll grant you Castlevania but Dante's Inferno is a bad defense since none of the revisions actually invoilve him and he's got nothing proving he's abstract anyway lol

 

[Hellbeast]

Just because a rating is "likely" isnt a defence against criticism and I'd argue if you want to keep it you should have more in the actual justification + references. Speaking of, could you explain a bit better the Omnipresence based off the GTA stuff? I think I'm missing something

 

[LordGinSama]

Firstly Lord, I'm going to ask you to speak a lil more respectfully since I've not come after you at all in this way and the attitude is frankly unjustified.

Hellbeast you've been arguing with shittt points and fallacies. Don't consider me attacking your argument as me attacking you personally, I'm in my right to attack arguments. I never attacked you so I'd appreciate you not twisting it out to be such.

Again, I'm going to have to ask for something more substantial here since all we know is the Strange Man protected the shopkeeper from dying, I've read the page for Law Manipulation and I'm not seeing much supporting this use. I'm not too familiar with Makima's justification so I can't comment too much on that.

Once more this is blatant argument from disbelief. Provide actual arguments instead of vague beliefs.

1) No, Death (Puss in Boots) has Abstract Existence because he straight up tells you "I am the 100% embodiment of death lol".

That's one reason why he has it, the rest are 1:1 with the Strange Man such as him being omnipresent and having knowledge on people that are in the reach of death.

2) Darksiders Death is the actual Death, he's called the Reaper.

The Grim Reaper isnt death first of all and the age stated in the profile literally contradicts this. Furthermore now your backtracking here by saying he's actually death.

he manipulates souls on multiple occasions.

MManipulation of souls =/= being death.

rides the Pale Horse as per the Bible.

Which is irrelevant unless it's 100% canon to the game. Next point. You should know from Shuumatsu threads this doesn't work. He's the Four Horseman equivalent of Death. Also if he was actual Death then he wouldn't be only a few thousands year in age and would have Death Manipulation.

and even has a quest where he has to prove he is actual Death.

Then make a CRT.

The issuee of the matter is he isn't an abstract being and unless I see better evidence for the Strange Man (aside from "he's implied to be death") I'm going to assume he's a smilar case.

First of all you have zero connections to the Strange man's case in comparison to the others. He's nothing like them so right now all your doing is using irrelevant comparison to other verses. Death from the example you gave isn't an intangible, omnipresent nigh omniscient being. You can't assume this is a similar case just based on the name "death" being used.

3) I'll grant you Castlevania but Dante's Inferno is a bad defense since none of the revisions actually invoilve him and he's got nothing proving he's abstract anyway lol

Fair.

Just because a rating is "likely" isnt a defence against criticism and I'd argue if you want to keep it you should have more in the actual justification + references.

It most certainly is given that's literally why we have the rating. I don't need anymore justification, I've given plenty for the non concrete rating. Again this already takes this argument into consideration, we literally have "likely" and "possibly" for a reason where if it isn't fully explained but strongly implied. His Abstract Existence isn't 100% hence why he has that rating to begin with. It's essentially open to interpretation so if you don't think he has it you can restrict it in Vs matches. This is open interpretation which the profile takes into consideration. I obviously wouldn't apply this as a full rating. Aside from that the Voice Actors and Rockstar also consider him to be Death / the Devil and its pretty common in old western fiction to involve them.

Speaking of, could you explain a bit better the Omnipresence based off the GTA stuff? I think I'm missing something

Literally what are you missing? He's appeared in GTA which is a separate universe along with Bully. He's capable of being near anyone that's on the verge of death, capable of appearing and reappearing wherever on a whim, etc.

 

[LordGinSama]

Quite literally that's why we give out such ratings. For things that aren't 100% and open to interpretation. Your free to use your own interpretation but that doesn't disqualify other interpretations. For a likely or a possibly it doesn't need to be directly stated.

 

[Hellbeast]

Hellbeast you've been arguing with shittt points and fallacies. Don't consider me attacking your argument as me attacking you personally, I'm in my right to attack arguments. I never attacked you so I'd appreciate you not twisting it out to be such.

Mate respectfully, your wording isn't just attacking points and fallacies, it's very pointed and I'd appreciate if you cut that out, especially since you've seemingly taken to my wall to continue this conversation when here is fine

Once more this is blatant argument from disbelief. Provide actual arguments instead of vague beliefs.

1) It isn't,you haven't mentioned why this case specifically should be Law Manipulation over similar cases in other verses other then just "it's a contract, that totally translates the manpulating the fundamental laws of the universe"

Hellbeast you've been arguing with shittt points and fallacies. Don't consider me attacking your argument as me attacking you personally, I'm in my right to attack arguments. I never attacked you so I'd appreciate you not twisting it out to be such.

Once more this is blatant argument from disbelief. Provide actual arguments instead of vague beliefs.

That's one reason why he has it, the rest are 1:1 with the Strange Man such as him being omnipresent and having knowledge on people that are in the reach of death.

Funnily it's the one reason given on the page so eh but the point is the case is much stronger, we see him at multiple of Puss' deaths, we see him later show each of those deaths when he reveals himself as the literal Death (the whistling is a further reference iirc). Compare that to the Strange Man, we do see he's aware of future deaths and can stop others from dying but 1) Omnipresence feels odd for reasons I'll come back to 2) He's never outright stated to be death, only implied to be and 3) There's no real evidence for the abstract stuff that you've provided that can't be explained by other sources. Control over Diseases? Disease and Curse Manipulation. Knowledge of when others will die? Precognition and Extrasensory Perception

The Grim Reaper isnt death first of all and the age stated in the profile literally contradicts this. Furthermore now your backtracking here by saying he's actually death.

MManipulation of souls =/= being death.

Which is irrelevant unless it's 100% canon to the game. Next point. You should know from Shuumatsu threads this doesn't work. He's the Four Horseman equivalent of Death. Also if he was actual Death then he wouldn't be only a few thousands year in age and would have Death Manipulation.

Then make a CRT.

First of all you have zero connections to the Strange man's case in comparison to the others. He's nothing like them so right now all your doing is using irrelevant comparison to other verses. Death from the example you gave isn't an intangible, omnipresent nigh omniscient being. You can't assume this is a similar case just based on the name "death" being used.

I mean we can if they're mentioned as such and vaguely hold as adaptations of the character, my point is the Strange Man being implied as death doesn't equal "is a Type 2 Conceptual Entity"

It most certainly is given that's literally why we have the rating. I don't need anymore justification, I've given plenty for the non concrete rating. Again this already takes this argument into consideration, we literally have "likely" and "possibly" for a reason where if it isn't fully explained but strongly implied. His Abstract Existence isn't 100% hence why he has that rating to begin with. It's essentially open to interpretation so if you don't think he has it you can restrict it in Vs matches. This is open interpretation which the profile takes into consideration. I obviously wouldn't apply this as a full rating. Aside from that the Voice Actors and Rockstar also consider him to be Death / the Devil and its pretty common in old western fiction to involve them.

I'd argue you do, you can say it comes down to interpretation but I'd say the vagueness of what the Strange Man being Death even entails (which I'll remind you is simply heavily implied in the text itself) makes it barely worth putting on the actual page.

Literally what are you missing? He's appeared in GTA which is a separate universe along with Bully. He's capable of being near anyone that's on the verge of death, capable of appearing and reappearing wherever on a whim, etc.

Because we don't accept GTA and Red Dead as the same canon, as per your very own revision and I'm not sure what the evidence for a "Rockstar Multiverse" as mentioned in the page is at any rate. They're completely separate continuities and there's no reason to assume this is more then an easter egg considering there's similar easter eggs across the game. Unless you wanna get back into assuming connectivity between the games, theres no real reason to use this to give the Strange Man Omni-Presence that I can see

 

[Hellbeast]

And this ignores a lot of stuff the profile says isn't actually sourced which makes me question how much of this is speculation vs what's directly stated or implied by the actual texts

 

[LordGinSama]

Mate respectfully, your wording isn't just attacking points and fallacies, it's very pointed and I'd appreciate if you cut that out, especially since you've seemingly taken to my wall to continue this conversation when here is fine

First of all don't call me mate. We obviously aren't close like that so it's condescending to refer to me as such. Secondly you can feel free to name when I've attacked you personally because I haven't. I've attacked the arguments presented so I'm going to ask you to drop this discussion entirely. Furthermore I came to your wall in regards to your Darksiders comparison so I'd appreciate it if you were to stop implying things that aren't there.

You know for a fact that was to get clarification from you. So I think it's extremely disrespectful and incredibly dishonest of you to attempt to pretend otherwise whenever I was respectfully asking you to elaborate on your comparisons.

1) It isn't,you haven't mentioned why this case specifically should be Law Manipulation over similar cases in other verses other then just "it's a contract, that totally translates the manpulating the fundamental laws of the universe"

It's a contract he formed. Law Manipulation isn't always Manipulation of fundamental forces in the universe and you know this for a fact.

Funnily it's the one reason given on the page so eh.

Are you going to ignore his Omnipresence? That's something that's a result of him being abstract furthering him being death.

but the point is the case is much stronger, we see him at multiple of Puss' deaths, we see him later show each of those deaths when he reveals himself as the literal Death (the whistling is a further reference iirc).

Whistling isnt a reference to death. Secondly as I said I'm aware, again it's why it's a likely.

Compare that to the Strange Man, we do see he's aware of future deaths and can stop others from dying but 1) Omnipresence feels odd for reasons I'll come back to.

And as ive said before unless you given an actual argument this is a moot point.

2) He's never outright stated to be death, only implied to be.

Heavily implied* which is enough for a possibly or likely rating.

and 3) There's no real evidence for the abstract stuff that you've provided that can't be explained by other sources. Control over Diseases?

Control of disease is a separate thing but even that can be argued as he's responsible for those deaths.

Disease and Curse Manipulation. Knowledge of when others will die? Precognition and Extrasensory Perception.

None of these are relevant to the discussion at hand.

I mean we can if they're mentioned as such and vaguely hold as adaptations of the character, my point is the Strange Man being implied as death doesn't equal "is a Type 2 Conceptual Entity"

Death is by default a type 2 Concept. If he's implied to be Death on multiple occasions then there's not much room for other assumptions. it's relatively straightforward.

I'd argue you do, you can say it comes down to interpretation but I'd say the vagueness of what the Strange Man being Death even entails (which I'll remind you is simply heavily implied in the text itself) makes it barely worth putting on the actual page.

It's nor very vague if it's the been implied on various occasions. Right now all your doing is essentially hand waving evidence with the excuse of what if arguments. You continue to ignore the fact that it isn't a solid rating and continue to pretend it is.

Because we don't accept GTA and Red Dead as the same canon, as per your very own revision.

My revision was to separate the universes not them as a whole.

and I'm not sure what the evidence for a "Rockstar Multiverse" as mentioned in the page is at any rate.

The Rockstar Multiverse are the games the company has made. They all belong to the same multiverse, multiple references throughout them despite them being set in separate universes. It's no different than a mangaka making several manga that are set in different universes but ultimately apart of their work as a whole.

. They're completely separate continuities.

This is never stated and you made this up Hellbeast. They're in different universes, The Strange Man on the other hand is shown in all of them. Unlike the main cast he can travel throughout them furthering him being death.

and there's no reason to assume this is more then an easter egg considering there's similar easter eggs across the game. Unless you wanna get back into assuming connectivity between the games, theres no real reason to use this to give the Strange Man Omni-Presence that I can see

It's not an Easter-Egg as that isn't stated or implied by Rockstar. Rockstar has a tendency to state if things were easter eggs, with this not being the case. Ultimately you are hand waving blatant statements, showings and using your own narrative.

And this ignores a lot of stuff the profile says isn't actually sourced which makes me question how much of this is speculation vs what's directly stated or implied by the actual texts

Bullshit. Quite literally everything is sourced in the profile and on my last CRT. The links are blatantly there so I'd appreciate you not lying about it lacking sources

 

[LordGinSama]

Bloodly hell Rockstar already has a Multiverse in GTA. The 3D Era and the other games are taken place in separate universes, with Red Dead and Bully being set in another.


All of them were made by Rockstar, similarly to how Mangaka can have works of fiction set in a different universes but still set in the same multiverse as their fiction. The Mashima Verse, The Nasuverse, Nightow Verse, etc all work like this. They'd all be apart of the same multiverse, just set in different universes in timelines. They're separate to a degree but they're still apart of what Rockstar has created.

 

[LordGinSama]

Also it's incredibly dishonest to use my GTA verse as means to say they aren't apart of the same multiverse whenever I explicitly stated they're still in the same multiverse. That thread was mainly meant to change the page name since Rockstar Games are labeled as the GTA verse. Like that's downright manipulative to be frank.

 

[Hellbeast]

First of all don't call me mate. We obviously aren't close like that so it's condescending to refer to me as such. Secondly you can feel free to name when I've attacked you personally because I haven't. I've attacked the arguments presented so I'm going to ask you to drop this discussion entirely. Furthermore I came to your wall in regards to your Darksiders comparison so I'd appreciate it if you were to stop implying things that aren't there.

Ok so clearly we're going with this and I implied nothing beyond it being unnecessary to come to my wall when he can discuss this here

It's a contract he formed. Law Manipulation isn't always Manipulation of fundamental forces in the universe and you know this for a fact.

Is it? The page doesn't make such direct allusions based off what I'm seeing here

It's nor very vague if it's the been implied on various occasions. Right now all your doing is essentially hand waving evidence with the excuse of what if arguments. You continue to ignore the fact that it isn't a solid rating and continue to pretend it is.

My revision was to separate the universes not them as a whole.

The Rockstar Multiverse are the games the company has made. They all belong to the same multiverse, multiple references throughout them despite them being set in separate universes. It's no different than a mangaka making several manga that are set in different universes but ultimately apart of their work as a whole.

This is never stated and you made this up Hellbeast. They're in different universes, The Strange Man on the other hand is shown in all of them. Unlike the main cast he can travel throughout them furthering him being death.

Bloodly hell Rockstar already has a Multiverse in GTA. The 3D Era and the other games are taken place in separate universes, with Red Dead and Bully being set in another.
All of them were made by Rockstar, similarly to how Mangaka can have works of fiction set in a different universes but still set in the same multiverse as their fiction. The Mashima Verse, The Nasuverse, Nightow Verse, etc all work like this. They'd all be apart of the same multiverse, just set in different universes in timelines. They're separate to a degree but they're still apart of what Rockstar has created.

Ok so we seem to be going by the idea each of the Rockstar games are alternate timelines but again, all we have is a litany of separate continuities rather then "the Multiverse is a confirmed aspect and multiple universes coexist with each other". I'm looking at the initial verse split CRT and you didn't seem to mention anything about a wider multiverse being confirmed by the actual devs beyond "Strange Man appears in multiple so there's clearly a larger cosmology here" when I don't think there's any grounds for that. It seems we're having our cake and eating it too by separating these settings while also using them to crosscale? As for Strange Man being an easter egg, I don't think it's as separate as you claim, I even mention other, more concrete references to Red Dead (including a novel written by Jack Marston) that appear in V. As for "GTA multiverse" that's not a thing either, they're separate continuities

Also it's incredibly dishonest to use my GTA verse as means to say they aren't apart of the same multiverse whenever I explicitly stated they're still in the same multiverse. That thread was mainly meant to change the page name since Rockstar Games are labeled as the GTA verse. Like that's downright manipulative to be frank.

Ad Hominem and I'd appreciate you put it to rest unless you want to discuss this on the RVT thread, this is the third showing of you taking this personally and I'm getting bored of this

 

[Hellbeast]

Also considering the GTAV thing references the romani character from Red Dead Online are we arguing she has Omnipresence too for somehow inspiring the theme park attraction? No, that's ridiculous, why are we assuming the Strange Man operates under a different set of rules other then "he's implied to be death, he must do"

Are you going to ignore his Omnipresence? That's something that's a result of him being abstract furthering him being death.

Whistling isnt a reference to death. Secondly as I said I'm aware, again it's why it's a likely.

And as ive said before unless you given an actual argument this is a moot point.

Heavily implied* which is enough for a possibly or likely rating.

Death is by default a type 2 Concept. If he's implied to be Death on multiple occasions then there's not much room for other assumptions. it's relatively straightforward.

It's nor very vague if it's the been implied on various occasions. Right now all your doing is essentially hand waving evidence with the excuse of what if arguments. You continue to ignore the fact that it isn't a solid rating and continue to pretend it is.

Again, saying it's not a solid rating isn't good enough considering we're going back and forth on the "he is Death" aspect without any further proof mentioned in the page. The fact is you've yet to show us concrete proof of why the Strange Man being an adaptation of Death means he's an abstract being in the way other verses do. And as I've said before, said omnipresence is flimsy based off the multiple other references to Red Dead and the fact that very easter egg implies mortal characters from that game exist in the GTA verse. There has to be some reasonable proof and unless I'm missing something I don't see it

 

[Hellbeast]

Either way, I see we're not going anywhere so that's my piece and I'll check out of this thread so its not clogged with this back and forth

 

[LordGinSama]

Is it? The page doesn't make such direct allusions based off what I'm seeing here.

The page isn't going to list all the examples.

Ok so we seem to be going by the idea each of the Rockstar games are alternate timelines but again, all we have is a litany of separate continuities rather then "the Multiverse is a confirmed aspect and multiple universes coexist with each other". I'm looking at the initial verse split CRT and you didn't seem to mention anything about a wider multiverse being confirmed by the actual devs beyond "Strange Man appears in multiple so there's clearly a larger cosmology here".

I'm literally the one who made that CRT so I'd know what that's referring to more than you. The Strange Man is the only one who can appear in the cosmology, furthermore this is how the wiki works. Rockstar made all of those games, ergo they'd be under the Rockstar verse rather than having multiple verse pages. Last but not least even without this, he'd still be omnipresent throughout Red Dead so this isn't an argument either.

when I don't think there's any grounds for that.

To which you havent given any actual arguments for other than disbelief. Make an actual argument or drop it entirely. It's tiring to have to tell you that argument from disbelief isnt an actual argument.

It seems we're having our cake and eating it too by separating these settings while also using them to crosscale?

I find it hilariously ironic that your making baseless claims of throwing shade while doing it yourself now.

As for Strange Man being an easter egg, I don't think it's as separate as you claim, I even mention other, more concrete references to Red Dead (including a novel written by Jack Marston).

Theres a pretty big difference in that Rockstar has confirmed this is an Easter Egg unlike the Strange Man stuff.

that appear in V. As for "GTA multiverse" that's not a thing either, they're separate continuities

Read above.

Ad Hominem and I'd appreciate you put it to rest unless you want to discuss this on the RVT thread, this is the third showing of you taking this personally and I'm getting bored of this.

First of all don't make threats of reporting anyone to the RVT whenever I haven't committed any violations. Secondly you can feel free to do that but that won't get you far and most likely you'd get warned yourself. Nobody broke any rules here so again at this point this is just you manipulating things. Ad Hominem is attacking someone personally which I haven't done Hellbeast. Last but not least the feeling is mutual. Stop asserting baseless claims. Right now you are indeed being manipulative by using an old thread of mine to reach a point I wasn't even trying to make. That's putting words in my mouth I never said.

But yeah feel free to report me based on nothing and see how that goes.

Also considering the GTAV thing references the romani character from Red Dead Online are we arguing she has Omnipresence too for somehow inspiring the theme park attraction? No, that's ridiculous, why are we assuming the Strange Man operates under a different set of rules other then "he's implied to be death, he must do"

And again with false comparisons. Red Dead Online doesn't have a set canon in relation to the actual story of Red Dead and this is just an easter egg made by Rockstar.

Again, saying it's not a solid rating isn't good enough considering we're going back and forth on the "he is Death" aspect without any further proof mentioned in the page.

It doesn't matter if we're going back and forth when your objectively wrong here. We have the rating for a reason, it doesn't need to be concrete.

The fact is you've yet to show us concrete proof of why the Strange Man being an adaptation of Death means he's an abstract being in the way other verses do.

Hand waving evidence and using what aboutisms.

And as I've said before, said omnipresence is flimsy based off the multiple other references to Red Dead and the fact that very easter egg implies mortal characters from that game exist in the GTA verse.

Fortunately your wrong on that regard for various reasons that I've explained already. Even with your argument that doesn't line up he'd still be omnipresent within the universe of Red Dead, furthermore The Strange Man isn't a "mortal" so that debunks your argument.

There has to be some reasonable proof and unless I'm missing something I don't see it

Well ultimately if you choose not to see something that's on you and nobody else. This is my last reply to you and I'd appreciate you don't interact with me from this point forward. We obviously don't agree here and I'm not going to talk to a user that makes baseless claims of personal attacks whenever that isn't the case.

 

[LordGinSama]

Likely
Should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be favourable. This term should be used sparingly.

Possibly
Should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be notable, but mild. This term should be used sparingly.

Aside from this this'll be my last reply to Hellbeast here. It's clear that we don't agree and I'd rather not be here all night so ultimately I'll let others decide here.

 

[Zenkaibattery1]

Saying that the profile lacks references in general is a bit unfair, most of the important stuff is sourced unlike a lot of profiles on the wiki but yeah I can add sources for the things that aren't currently. Changing Causality to Fate Manipulation is fine to ig. Otherwise I agree with @LordGinSama in regards to AE and Omnipresence. "Likely" is there for a reason, and Hellbeast hasn't given any actual argument against the abilities beyond "well I think" or "it's flimsy at best" without saying why it is. At worst he is omnipresent throughout RDR, but him existing in GTA is way too blatant

Side note, I removed the duplicate curse and disease manipulation a bit ago.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

It actually does. Being from another world separate from the mortal world would mean he runs on a different system of causality.

No it's not if there is no information about this world.

There's also blatant correlation there with the Blind Man. He states he can't see anything regarding the Strange Man, then follows it up by saying he isn't of this world. His precognition is tied to the mortal world, the Strange Man comes from another world.

There is no correlation between the two, it's just an assumption. And even if that were the case, the Strange Man is not completely immune to the Blind Man's precognition, as he sees him in his vision. He doesn't see what he's doing but he sees it anyway, so it's just a limited resistance to precognition

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

At worst he is omnipresent throughout RDR, but him existing in GTA is way too blatant

No.
References to Strange Man in other Rockstar games are just easter eggs, it is not proof that he exists in these universes.

A statue of Prince Hans from Frozen appears in Big Hero 6, but that doesn't mean he exists in this universe, it's just an easter egg because both films are made by the same studio.

 

[LordGinSama]

No.
References to Strange Man in other Rockstar games are just easter eggs, it is not proof that he exists in these universes.

You'd need to prove that's an easter egg. If they were Easter Eggs then Rockstar would have confirmed such, and to my knowledge they haven't. So right now the burden of proof is on you to prove that's it's an Easter-Egg.

A statue of Prince Hans from Frozen appears in Big Hero 6, but that doesn't mean he exists in this universe, it's just an easter egg because both films are made by the same studio.

Blatantly difference between the two. Your example is stated to be an easter egg, secondly I'm pretty sure Disney is accepted as a multiverse here so this is a moot point to argue.

No it's not if there is no information about this world.

I would imagine that isn't needed, the system of the mortal world and the other world are obviously pretty different from one another if the mortal plane isn't capable of creation over beings like the Strange Man.

There is no correlation between the two, it's just an assumption.

The correlation is quite literally textbook here. The Blind-Man follows up his statement about the Strange Man with exactly that.

And even if that were the case, the Strange Man is not completely immune to the Blind Man's precognition, as he sees him in his vision. He doesn't see what he's doing but he sees it anyway.

Now this is a better argument however there's still one issue. The Blind Man never actually precogs The Strange Man, having co clue about him, why he's there, his identity, etc. It's moreso that he picked up on the Strange Man's presence as opposed to seeing any future regarding the Strange Man.

Honestly although I would be fine with Acausality type 4 being removed and replaced with precognition resistance if it's that much of an issue. It's relatively minor to begin with so I wouldn't die on this ant hill.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

You'd need to prove that's an easter egg. If they were Easter Eggs then Rockstar would have confirmed such, and to my knowledge they haven't. So right now the burden of proof is on you to prove that's it's an Easter-Egg.

A studio doesn't need to confirm such a blatant thing... With this logic a bunch of verses in fiction are canon to each other because their creators have never confirmed this kind of thing...

Blatantly difference between the two. Your example is stated to be an easter egg, secondly I'm pretty sure Disney is accepted as a multiverse here so this is a moot point to argue.

Disney never confirmed that it was an easter egg, like almost all movies/videos games studios, it's just logical that it's a simple easter egg, and therefore that doesn't mean that Frozen and Big Hero 6 are in the same world.

It's up to you to prove that the Strange Man references aren't just easter eggs.

The correlation is quite literally textbook here. The Blind-Man follows up his statement about the Strange Man with exactly that.

That still doesn't mean there is a correlation.

 

[LordGinSama]

A studio doesn't need to confirm such a blatant thing... With this logic a bunch of verses in fiction are canon to each other because their creators have never confirmed this kind of thing...

This is inherently false, Rockstar will literally state what is and what isn't an Easter-Egg as they've done multiple times. Jack's book is stated to be an Easter-Egg. The UFO is stated to be an easter egg. Etc

Disney never confirmed that it was an easter egg, like almost all movies/videos games studios, it's just logical that it's a simple easter egg, and therefore that doesn't mean that Frozen and Big Hero 6 are in the same world.

Then that's on Disney, and again that verse in particular is a multi verse with things such as Kingdom Hearts, the various crossovers, etc.

It's up to you to prove that the Strange Man references aren't just easter eggs.

It isn't. You're the one who claimed they're easter eggs do the burden of proof falls onto you not me. You made the claim ergo you need to provide evidence for the claim.

That still doesn't mean there is a correlation.

Elaborate rather than simply saying no. You have yet to explain how there isn't a correlation whenever it's made within the same statement directly afterwards. That's a textbook definition of correlation.

 

[Zenkaibattery1]

I don't see how statues and books as Easter eggs is comparable at all to The strange man in GTA. That fortunteteller woman says "I see a strange man.. in a top hat, he frightens me". (Ehem, fear inducement via aura) She's literally saying she sees him (in their world) at that moment, so he's literally there as a person, and not just some random easter egg

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

This is inherently false, Rockstar will literally state what is and what isn't an Easter-Egg as they've done multiple times. Jack's book is stated to be an Easter-Egg. The UFO is stated to be an easter egg. Etc

It isn't. You're the one who claimed they're easter eggs do the burden of proof falls onto you not me. You made the claim ergo you need to provide evidence for the claim.

You seem to think that an easter egg is necessarily non-canon, which is obviously not the case, an easter egg can totally be canon.
The point of an easter egg is to be a hidden/cryptic reference, not to canonically link one universe to another (at least not necessarily)

Whether a studio says that something is an easter egg doesn't mean that it's canon or not, it just means that it's a deliberate reference by the developers or directors. To prove that an easter egg canonically links a character or a universe to a universe of a different work (in our case Strange Man with the GTA and Bully universe), the creators must confirm it, there must be proof, a statement, which is still not the case with the Strange Man.

So no, the Strange Man does not exist in the GTA or Bully universe, an easter egg is not valid evidence.

Elaborate rather than simply saying no. You have yet to explain how there isn't a correlation whenever it's made within the same statement directly afterwards. That's a textbook definition of correlation.

I've already explained it. There is no connection mentioned by the blind man, he just says that he comes from another world, he does not say that he cannot predict what he does because he comes from another world. This may be the case, but it's not confirmed, so it's just an assumption.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

I don't see how statues and books as Easter eggs is comparable at all to The strange man in GTA. That fortunteteller woman says "I see a strange man.. in a top hat, he frightens me". (Ehem, fear inducement via aura) She's literally saying she sees him (in their world) at that moment, so he's literally there as a person, and not just some random easter egg

It's an easter egg by definition. This is a simple reference to RDR2, it does not mean that the two are linked canonically. You just don't seem to know what easter eggs are.
Also if you consider that the mention of the Strange Man in GTA online by Madame Nazar canonizes the character, that means that Madame Nazar herself is canon in the GTA HD universe, and therefore that RDR universe is too.

 

[LordGinSama]

You seem to think that an easter egg is necessarily non-canon, which is obviously not the case, an easter egg can totally be canon.
The point of an easter egg is to be a hidden/cryptic reference, not to canonically link one universe to another (at least not necessarily).

No. Again Rockstar will state if something is or is not an easter egg. You claimed that it's an Easter-Egg, now it's your job to prove said claim. Right now you haven't done so in any capacity by simply claiming its an Easter-Egg without a shred of official evidence.

Whether a studio says that something is an easter egg doesn't mean that it's canon or not, it just means that it's a deliberate reference by the developers or directors.

This is also inherently fasle as if the creators are stating if something is an easter egg or not 100% confirms of its canonicity. To be frank you don't have any authority to be claiming what is and what isn't canon to Rockstar without using an official source for that claim.

To prove that an easter egg canonically links a character or a universe to a universe of a different work (in our case Strange Man with the GTA and Bully universe), the creators must confirm it, there must be proof, a statement, which is still not the case with the Strange Man.

Read above. You need to prove that it's an Easter-Egg with a statement from Rockstar. So far Rockstar has confirmed what is and what isn't an Easter-Egg and to my knowledge this is not one to them.

So no, the Strange Man does not exist in the GTA or Bully universe, an easter egg is not valid evidence.

Read above.

I've already explained it. There is no connection mentioned by the blind man, he just says that he comes from another world, he does not say that he cannot predict what he does because he comes from another world. This may be the case, but it's not confirmed, so it's just an assumption.

You do realize debating as a whole utilizes assumptions correct? It doesn't need to be worded as such to reach said conclusion as this is open to interpretation.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

No. Again Rockstar will state if something is or is not an easter egg. You claimed that it's an Easter-Egg, now it's your job to prove said claim. Right now you haven't done so in any capacity by simply claiming its an Easter-Egg without a shred of official evidence.

This is also inherently fasle as if the creators are stating if something is an easter egg or not 100% confirms of its canonicity. To be frank you don't have any authority to be claiming what is and what isn't canon to Rockstar without using an official source for that claim.

Read above. You need to prove that it's an Easter-Egg with a statement from Rockstar. So far Rockstar has confirmed what is and what isn't an Easter-Egg and to my knowledge this is not one to them.

Read above.

Why do you ignore what I explained and repeat the same arguments?
You're still assuming that an easter egg is non-canon but that's absolutely false.

By definition the photo of the Strange Man in Bully and his mention in GTA V are easter eggs, there is no need for Rockstar to tell us for that to be the case. Stating that they are easter eggs does not mean that they are non-canon or canon, that is not necessarily the role of an easter egg.
I'm not saying that the Strange Man's references isn't canon to Bully and GTA universe just because they are easter eggs, but because there is just that, and therefore it's not enough. Do you understand what I mean?

And as I explained to Zenkai above, if you consider that the mention of the Strange Man by a robot of Madam Nazar canonizes him in the GTA universe, that means that Madam Nazar and RDR in general are too.

You do realize debating as a whole utilizes assumptions correct? It doesn't need to be worded as such to reach said conclusion as this is open to interpretation.

If it's open to interpretation then it's not usable, especially in versus in general to avoid wank. The blind man neither explicitly nor implicitly says that he cannot predict what the Strange Man will do because he comes from another world, he just said that he comes from another world, that's all. And even if that were the case, well it won't change anything because it wouldn't give Type 4 Acausality to the Strange Man because he can still be seen by the blind man's precognition.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Do you understand what I mean?

I think a second explanation won't be too much
The photo of the Strange Man in Bully and his mention in GTA Online are by definition easter eggs, they are 100% (and don't worry, that doesn't mean they are necessarily non-canon. The furtive appearances of Lexcorp buildings in Man of Steel are considered easter eggs, as are the multiple mentions of other DC superheroes in Batman Arkham Knight. All of these easter eggs are canon to the movie and game in which they appear.)
It's not because they are easter eggs that I think that doesn't make Strange Man canon to these universes, but it's because there are just that, just easter eggs.

As I said, an easter egg can canonically link two universes, but it has to be said or show. If Rockstar one day says that the Strange Man easter egg in GTA Online makes this character canon in the GTA universe, well that will be good, but this is not the case.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

Bump

 

[LordGinSama]

I'll reply later.

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

I'll reply later.

This debate actually doesn't matter.
Whether or not Strange Man's easter eggs canonize him to other Rockstar games, it's not nigh-omnipresence. Existing in other universes is not sufficient justification.

But Strange Man can still have nigh-omnipresence/multilocation because he is Death himself

 

[Ser_Hakim_Dayne]

So here is what I propose for the P&A of Strange Man:

Type 1 AE, Type 1 Multilocation, Fate and Death Manipulation via being Death itself
Curse and Disease Manipulation via the Armadillo Curse
Power Bestowal for protecting Herbert Moon from epidemics
Intangibility because bullets pass through him
Nigh Omniscience to know almost everything
Resistance to Precognition because the Blind Man cannot predict what he will do in the future

Maybe Avatar Creation and/or Concept manipulation?