Voidus

Any chance we could get one of Funtimes and Shiny meeting each other?

Just going off the answer Brandon's given, I assume he's discussed it with some physicists and has a reasonably satisfying mechanism.

*fixed

I meant Weaknesses in the general sense, not the personal sense. Weaknesses are activated based on the objective reality of their existence, in some cases that's the objective existence of a certain perception but it's still the fact that that perception objectively exists, not the other way around. Because if his weakness is that humans are good, that's objectively true well before he even arrives on earth, his weakness would be instantly activated and he'd die before he did anything. No, of course I don't, what personal emotion could he possibly be fearing? For all the reasons I already mentioned. The whole point of Profs defeat is that they're redeeming him, if you think that's the mirror then you agree with my point, not that he's destroyed. Now if you argued that it was mirrored by Steelhearts defeat you might have a point but it's noticeably dissimilar from everything about Steelhearts defeat. Every instance of an Epic being redeemed can be seen as foreshadowing of Calamitys redemption, and since this is explicitly stated to be the better goal I'd say it was far better foreshadowing than using the weakness to kill was. If you're trying to convince anyone then it absolutely is your concern, and given that you obviously don't see the equally simple parallels to redemption I don't really think you should be criticizing. If that's how you choose to read the books then that's fine, everyone has their own way. But personally? Because if you don't embrace that idea you get to think about what you might be missing, where the foreshadowing may come from, what might happen next, how everything might fit together. 1. Yet the only ones we've seen using them are humans and so have no basis to speculate about how his species acts when using them. 2. So it's another thing that makes him unique compared to all Epics we know of, so it's another reason to suspect he might be different. 3. He's the source of them all, you don't think that makes him different? Compare gifters to those they gift powers to, notice some differences? Yet another reason to speculate that logically there should also be differences between Epics and the one who gifted them. 4. No, he has every power so he's different, from the evidence I then assume that one of the differences is that he doesn't have a weakness. Shards are near omnipotent and not limited by their magic system, the second law isn't universally applicable to everything, it's a guideline for writing not an absolute law that must be adhered to in every single line of every piece of information in a book. Except it was clearly explained why other Epics have weaknesses, it's his fear that causes them, they get their powers from him, we don't know where he gets his power from so it's irrational to assume that the same limitation applies. Firefight wasn't defeated she was Redeemed (And in my opinion so was Calamity, which makes it two of three that were redeemed), which again is my point, the tone shifts from trying to win the minor victory of killing an Epic to the greater victory of redeeming them so that people can see that there are good Epics. It is literally the entire plot of Calamity. Those bullying Epics have their motivations revealed, it's not about defeating them it's about understanding them and in the later books even about helping them. Steelheart wasn't even as evil as he wanted people to believe, he was just afraid that people wouldn't respect him so he pretended to be worse than he was so that they'd fear him. If your message is just how to defeat a bully you don't go to great lengths to show the motivations of the bully. The story of Perseus and Medusa doesn't go into detail of how Medusa was actually just petrified of being lonely and so she kept frozen adventurers with her to keep her company, it's a simple: Monster bad, hero good scenario. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that there are far deeper messages than that of defeating bullies, yes it's a surface problem and one directly referenced by Davids name but that's not the point of the series, the entire point of the end is that these bullies actually aren't all bad. So I'm sorry if you feel that I'm attacking you, I'm just sharing what I believe the messages of the series are, and more importantly what I think we should take from it. No, but whether or not people adhere to a certain definition of good certainly is. David didn't convince Calamity to change his definition of good, he convinced him that people fit into his already existing definition.

I've suggested that BreakingAmber posts here before doing any RP posts so we can all give advice about characters and about the RPs rules about things like godmodding.

Larcener does have the advantage of being an all powerful superbeing so we can't really tell if that's standard for the profile. Wasn't there also some kind of reference that Larcener was also unique in the strength of the abilities he could steal? So another point in favour is that an Assumer might not even be able to steal PIs.

Honestly even if you succeed you're still going to have a bad time, every High Epic in the area is going to want to murder you.

Cancelers can't cancel passives which means most PIs still work. Also given the restrictions on assuming abilities (Touch) most High Epics wouldn't have a problem killing an Assumer before they got assumed. Also also, I'm not completely opposed to having a method by which High Epics can actually be killed, it gives them some tension and we still control the characters, there's still the rule against killing other players characters without permission.

Not really a counterexample, David tells us in book 1 that weaknesses include thinking certain thoughts, but even then it's still an objective fact whether or not you thought that thought, all weaknesses are still objective. Depends what you think Calamitys is, if you think it's that people are good then that's clearly objectively based, honestly I can't think of anything that would be based on perception that suits the facts, if you think you can by all means go ahead. If Calamity slowly fading in a manner entirely unbecoming of an immortal omnipotent being was the only show of him dying then that's a bad way of showing, the fact that we are discussing this shows that whichever was intended it clearly didn't show that to the entire audience. That's the reason so many are unsatisfied. It's not inconsistent, it's still consistent you just may not understand how. Calamity is evidently different from all Epics in a number of ways, 1. he's not human, 2. he's the first 3. he gave all the others powers 4. He has every power Why would you assume the same rules apply to him when he is evidently so very different? I can and do, maybe that's how you see the story but for me those are just action filler to keep things interesting. Hansel and Gretel eat a whole bunch of candy in their fairy tail but I don't believe that the message of the story is that you should eat candy. Or indeed that you should beware of witches. Or that the solution to bullies is to kick them into their own cookpots. Messages tend to come from overall plot rather than the exciting bits between.

Given that we're having this argument whichever happened it was shown not told. If we were told we'd be quoting the line that tells us and this discussion would be over. As for whether or not it was shown that's what we're currently arguing, I believe it was, you believe it wasn't. Sometimes but those were always the lesser victories, that's the entire premise of Calamity, that you can't just kill them all, you have to turn them into heroes. There have been plenty of times he hasn't, and it's worked for the better. Good authors do it all the time, deathbed redemption being primary among them. The point is that he's not remorseful, he just knows what he's meant to do, and that is to leave like he was always supposed to. Sticking around to explain anything undermines that. Ruin isn't subject to Hemalurgy's weakness, Endowment doesn't drain color, there are plenty of cases where the bestower of powers wasn't limited by those powers. That doesn't make the magic inconsistent, it just means it's more complex than we understand. There's always another secret. They can be weak to a perception, but actually in those cases the only one who is completely perceptively based is Limelight, Fortuitys is based on being attracted to someone but simple attraction isn't the complete solution, there's something more to it, Newtons is based on being valued but it's activated objectively. Any time someone compliments her her weakness activates, she doesn't need to hear it and then think about how that reflects how she is valued, it activates independently of her perception. Steelhearts is about being feared but it doesn't matter whether or not he perceives the person as fearing him it's whether or not they actually do, Megans is fire but it's not whether or not she perceives fire it's whether or not there is actually a fire, even Prof is partially weakened by someone who uses the same powers as him, he doesn't know that there's a link between them yet it's objectively true so his weakness activates. Weaknesses activate regardless of the Epics ability to perceive that weakness. If Calamitys weakness was that humanity is good then either objectively speaking humanity is good in which case his weakness is activated and he dies before anyone even knows he's there or else humanity isn't good in which case just pretending to be wouldn't work. Personally I think that's very near to the complete opposite of the intended message, there is the message that violence comes from fear, or that we all fear something, or that we can struggle and overcome our weaknesses, or that we can only truly conquer our fears with the help of others, there's plenty of messages to choose from but I really didn't get that at all. Guess that's just a difference in how we read it.

That's not addressing, that's just stating the same thing. The point still stands that a psychological weakness is still a weakness. I disagree that that's an awesome magical solution. I certainly disagree that it's staring you in the face. Whether Calamity overcame his weakness or succumbed to it that's still magical. I just think that the solution involving actual character change makes more sense, particularly for a near-omnipotent being. I'm not saying Calamity is not an Epic, I'm saying that Calamity is nearly omnipotent, screaming that people are good should not just make him go poof and vanish. What is so appealing about that? It's counterintuitive, it's anticlimactic and (to me at the least) it makes no sense. David already objectively proved that humans can be good, as did Megan, as did Prof, the only thing talking to Calamity did was convince him of that. Weaknesses don't activate based on perception.

Could just be an all or nothing store, and Nicrosil is far from pointless even if feruchemy doesn't have strength.

Not really, you mentioned it but didn't address it. And Megan creates illusions of herself as a fire Epic all the time with no problems and interacts with it, still something she's petrified of. Neither is a good plan because neither was planned, he planned on blowing Calamity up and he failed, afterwards he did what he could, he also made no signs of trying to attack Calamity while from your point of view trying to activate his weakness, I ask you, what kind of Reckoner just sits there talking to an Epic while their weakness activates rather than shooting them as many times as possible as quickly as possible? Which brings me to my next point, Sandersons laws apply to a magic system not a plot, the first law is about explaining how something works before showing it (eg. Dialogue about steel and iron lines and what they do before you have a character flying through the mists) The zeroth law is about making your magic cool, not about plot points (And arguably an alien species leaving back for its own dimension is cooler than that magical entity that is nigh omnipotent just slowly fading away like a bad dream just because you told it that people are good) the second law applies to powers not characters (Though this one I'll let slide since I believe and I'm sure that Brandon does too that it's equally applicable to people). But even if we were to apply them to this particular plot point you're just ignoring all the potential solutions in the proposed plot of the ending, the entire theme of Calamity is trying to redeem Epics not kill them, thus the first law is fulfilled, they explain the aim and method by which Epics are redeemed and then apply this to the ultimate Epic. I already addressed that an omnipotent being simply fading away with a whimper is hardly awesome. Thus the zeroth law may also be considered fulfilled. The second law is fulfilled because as I mentioned the character still has the exact same weakness, it's just psychological rather than magical, moreover this provides the character with an opportunity to overcome that weakness so we fill the second law in spades. The third law is fulfilled in much the same way as the first, expanding on the idea of redeeming Epics to redeem Calamity itself.

Having a weakness isn't the same as having a 'Weakness', Calamity still had the same weakness, he was petrified of humanity. The difference is just that that doesn't magically erase his powers, think of it as a Shard whose intent is something like fear, near omnipotent and limited by that intent but not magically so just cognitively.

Oh right, sorry misunderstood your first post, thought you meant retconning them as not being twins would mean we can't have motivators.

Why would we retcon motivators?

Yeah Shards don't really have a physical body so I'm skeptical that the weapon would just be Aluminium. Aluminium is, silver isn't except on Thredony.

Yeah me too, the whole point of weaknesses is that they caused Calamitys powers to flee from the person, that's implied to be because Calamity withdraws himself from them, not because it's an intrinsic part of the powers. Indeed since his weakness is everything then he shouldn't have been able to use any powers at all as Larcener and would have instantly faded away upon manifesting on earth.

I don't recommend it, last time I hugged someone they accidentally got stabbed on my eye spike.

Yes they did.

It's orange polka-dotted turtles. Honestly the hints were there all along, I don't know how I missed it. Oh wait. Whoops, sorry.

Relevant signing report: Q: If an Epic gifts their powers to someone, is that person then vulnerable to the Epic's weakness? A: Yes, but to a lesser extent.

Because when Voidus breaks canon unnecessarily his head explodes. Then again it does grow back so I suppose it's no big deal.

What do you mean triangle? It's clearly a quadrangle and the Stick is clearly Shallans one true love. (Shallastick OTP)

For secretly being a giant fire-breathing rabbit that only eats mustard. (Maybe not currently but I'm hoping in the future you will be )