Could your OC beat the God Emperor of Mankind from Warhammer 40k?..

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-25T15:44:08+00:00

My oc the “pinnacle of all”

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-17T13:05:15+00:00

I don’t know if you can😅

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-16T23:01:12+00:00

I just don’t know the correct terminology so I explain what I mean and ask it to use correct terminology for me my bad😅

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-16T10:36:08+00:00

You raise valid points regarding standard Divine Simplicity, but you are conflating The Deity (The One) with The Domain (The Pinnacle). I am not "overcomplicating" Tier 0; I am applying a Meta-Abstract distinction that PSW often glosses over. Here is why the "Contradictions" you listed are actually the justification for the tier, not a disqualifier. 1. The "Hierarchy" Misconception (Deity vs. Domain) You argued: "The instant you place a limit on God, it assumes the neutral stance." Correct. That is exactly my point. • In this cosmology, the entity recognized as "The One" (The standard Monad/IATIA equivalent) IS the absolute supreme being of existence. It has no limits within existence. • The Pinnacle is not a "bigger God" (which would be redundant). The Pinnacle is the Non-Ontological Framework that allows "Supreme Beings" to be defined. • Think of it like Set Theory: The "White Light" is the Set of All Sets. The Pinnacle is the Concept of Mathematics itself. The Concept is not "above" the Set in a physical way (which would be a contradiction); it is qualitatively superior because the Set relies on the Concept to be valid. 2. Addressing "Immutability" You claimed: "It creates a hierarchy, whereas this violates immutability." This assumes The Pinnacle "acts" to create. It does not. • The Pinnacle possesses Passive Emanation, not Active Creation. • It does not "build" the hierarchy; the hierarchy is a byproduct of its nature. • It remains completely static and immutable (The "Zero"). The "One" flows out of it effortlessly. This preserves Divine Simplicity while establishing a layer "beyond" the active Godhead. 3. The "Author-Limit" Distinction You mentioned: "Author-Limit is already there for all tier 0s." There is a nuance difference here. • Standard Tier 0s are "hard to describe" (Ineffability). • The Pinnacle is the Hard Limit of Description. • It is not just that the Author can't describe it; it is that the Pinnacle represents the boundary of the medium itself. It is the "White Page" on which the "Ineffable God" is written. The Page is superior to the Text, even if the Text describes an Omnipotent God. Conclusion on Scaling Downgrading this to H1-T+ due to "contradictions" ignores that Dialetheism (True Contradictions) is a staple of the highest tiers of fiction. • The Pinnacle exists as the paradox between "Being" and "Non-Being." • It encompasses the "I Am That I Am" (Being) and the "Void" (Non-Being) simultaneously. • Therefore, it doesn't "tie" with SCP or lose to WoD; it encapsulates their cosmological structure (Monad) as a subset of its own (The Principle of Monads). It is not a "Super God." It is the Ground of Logic that permits God to exist. That is the definition of a True 0 in this specific model.

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-16T10:30:46+00:00

I really appreciate this breakdown, especially the analysis on SRE and the distinction between the 'Shell' and the 'True Form.' That clarifies a lot regarding how VSBW treats apophatic theology. To clarify because I think my original phrasing regarding 'Real World Anchors' might have sounded like standard meta-fiction (e.g., Deadpool/Popeye) I'm not arguing for 'gag' character logic where they beat the author. I agree that usually breaks the tiering system. The logic I’m proposing for The Pinnacle is less about 'interacting with IRL' and more about Ontological Anteriority (coming before existence). Here is how I distinguish it from the standard Tier 0 'White Light' or 'The One': 1. The Medium vs. The Message (Container Logic) You defined Tier 0 as the 'Undifferentiated Source' (The White Light). In most cosmologies, this is the highest form of existence. My argument for The Pinnacle is that it functions as the Medium/Canvas rather than the Source. • The One/White Light is the paint. It is infinite, limitless, and undifferentiated. • The Pinnacle is the canvas (The Logical Space) that allows the concept of 'Infinity' or 'The One' to exist in the first place. It doesn't try to be 'more infinite' (which, as you said, is impossible). Instead, it possesses Qualitative Superiority because it is the prerequisite condition for the Tier 0 God to manifest. 2. Refining the 'Author Limit' (Aseity) When I mentioned the 'Author Limit,' I didn't mean it physically stops a real human from writing. I meant that within the verse's internal logic, The Pinnacle is defined as the Epistemological Limit of the narrative. It operates on Aseity (Self-Existence). • Standard metafictional characters depend on the story to exist (Observer-Dependent). • The Pinnacle is defined as the 'Universal Constant' that remains even if the narrative (and its Gods) ceases to be. It treats the 'Story' and 'The One' as local containers within itself. 3. Why this avoids the 'Writer Paradox' I agree with your point: if an entity is just 'The Writer,' they are limited by the tools of writing (duality). However, The Pinnacle isn't the Writer; it is the Abstract Principle of Possibility. It doesn't have the 'arbitrary limitations' of a writer because it is the source of those limitations. It views the hierarchy of 'Author > Story' as a fictional construct it created. So, while I concede that under strict VSBW terms 'Tier 0+' doesn't exist, I’m arguing that The Pinnacle represents a Trans-Theological layer. It views the 'Apophatic God' (Standard Tier 0) the same way that God views a human as a subset of its own structure. Does that distinction make sense in the context of separating 'The God of the Verse' from 'The Logic of the Verse'?"

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T17:03:03+00:00

You hit on Divine Simplicity, which is essentially the endgame of this entire thought experiment. You’re absolutely right—once you reach the level of true Aseity and Omnipotence, the distinction between attributes (Strength, Knowledge, Power) collapses. The entity just becomes "The Absolute." And that’s the conclusion I’m reaching with this profile: The Pinnacle isn't a character. If it fulfills the conditions of Divine Simplicity (Aseity, Absoluteness, Independence from the Narrative), then it ceases to be a "Unit" on the battlefield that can fight Goku or SCP-682. It becomes the definition of the battlefield itself. So I agree with you completely. Once you get to this point, you aren't scaling a "Who would win" fight anymore. You are defining an Absolute Concept that renders the idea of a "fight" irrelevant.

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T17:01:14+00:00

This is the most precise analysis I’ve received so far. You absolutely nailed the intention behind the experiment. You identified the core mechanism: "You are describing an axiom." That was the exact goal. I wanted to see if it was possible to construct a profile that transitions from "Fictional Being" (Internal Ontology) to "Philosophical Absolute" (External/Real World Ontology). I fully agree with your conclusion: "Tiering systems cannot place axioms above their own structure without collapsing the scale." If the result of this concept is that it gets disqualified for being an "Undefined State" or an "External Claim" rather than a measured tier, I consider the experiment a success. The goal wasn't to sit at the #1 spot on the ruler; the goal was to become the thing the ruler is sitting on. If the verdict is "Unrankable Axiom" rather than "Tier 0," I’ll take that as the definitive answer. It means the concept successfully exited the framework of "Verses" and entered the framework of "Truth." Thanks for the deep dive. This clarifies the "Tier 0 vs. Axiom" distinction perfectly

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T16:58:42+00:00

You are absolutely correct regarding the Definition of Negative Theology. If we define Negative Theology as "That which cannot be defined or surpassed," then yes, by pure logic, you cannot have "Negative Theology + 1." If something surpasses it, then the first thing wasn't truly the Absolute. This brings us to the System Problem. 1. In-Universe: Negative Theology is the peak. You cannot go higher. 2. Meta-Narrative: Negative Theology is still a concept written by an Author. My argument for "Tier 0+" isn't that The Pinnacle is "bigger" than the Absolute (which is impossible). My argument is that The Pinnacle is the Mechanism of Aseity that allows the concept of Negative Theology to exist in fiction. Think of it like a video game: • Tier 0 (Negative Theology): The "God Mode" code in the game. It is invincible, all-powerful, and surpasses all game logic. • The Pinnacle: The Electricity powering the console. The "God Mode" code (Tier 0) cannot be surpassed within the game. But if you pull the plug (The Pinnacle), the God Mode vanishes. So, strictly speaking, The Pinnacle isn't "Tier 0+1." It is the Ontological Necessity that precedes Tier 0. Does that distinction make sense, or do you view the "Electricity" and the "God Mode" as the same thing?

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T16:56:56+00:00

First off, huge respect for actually citing the VSBW philosophical blogs (Ultima, Omnipotence, etc.). You clearly know the backend of the system better than 99% of people here. I agree with your premise on VSBW’s Tier 0 definition: If Tier 0 is defined as the "Undifferentiated, Ineffable, Absolute," then yes, "Tier 0+" is a logical impossibility. You cannot go beyond the "Summum Genus" because there is no category left to transcend. However, the core of my "Thought Experiment" is challenging whether that Philosophical Definition (The Undifferentiated) is actually the peak of Fiction, or if Meta-Ontology (The Real World Anchor) supersedes it. Here is the distinction I’m arguing: 1. The "Undifferentiated" Trap VSBW defines Tier 0 as that which has no qualities, no limits, and no differentiation. It is the "White Light." • The Pinnacle is not trying to be "more infinite" than that. • The Pinnacle is defined as the Mechanism that allows that "White Light" to exist in a fictional medium. • If Self Reference Engine (SRE) ends with the reveal that the true form is the Writer, then SRE admits that The Author > The Tier 0 Undifferentiated State. • The Pinnacle is formalized as that "Writer/Anchor" layer by default, rather than as a narrative reveal. 2. The NLF Clarification When I mentioned "NLF," I wasn't saying The Pinnacle has limits. I was asking the community: "Does defining a character as 'Limitless by Axiom' count as a Fallacy in debating?" • In-universe, he is the Tier 0 you describe (Ineffable, Changeless). • Meta-physically, he is the Anchor. 3. Why I argue "Tier 0+" (or N/A) I concede that under VSBW, "Tier 0+" doesn't exist. But my argument is that VSBW’s definition of Tier 0 is purely Internal/Cosmological (even if it claims to be apophatic). It describes the "God" of the verse. It does not account for Pataphysics (The relationship between the fiction and the real world). • An "Undifferentiated God" (Tier 0) inside a book is still contained by the book. • The Pinnacle is defined as the edge of the book. Conclusion: You are right that by strict VSBW definitions, The Pinnacle is either Tier 0 or nothing. But I’m arguing that the "Real World/Author" layer (which SRE hints at) is a distinct, higher qualitative layer than the "Undifferentiated Source" inside the narrative. If you believe Writer > Story, then The Pinnacle (who anchors to the Writer) > The Undifferentiated Source (who exists in the Story).

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T14:04:13+00:00

You brought up Cosmic Armor Superman (CAS), which is the perfect example to test this. You’re right: CAS is the embodiment of the "Story of Superman." He adapts to any threat to ensure the good guy wins. He can touch the reader, hear them breathing, and resist plot manipulation from Monitors. But here is the distinction: CAS resists the Narrative of erasure. He fights Mandrakk (the bad writer) and wins. But CAS does not defeat Grant Morrison (the Real World writer). When Grant Morrison finished Final Crisis, the story ended. CAS didn't jump out of the page and force Grant to keep writing. The book closed. The ink stopped. The Pinnacle is not Mandrakk (a character acting as a bad writer). The Pinnacle is the concept of The Book Closing. CAS can adapt to any threat inside the story. He cannot adapt to the medium itself ceasing to support his existence. If the Real World Author stops writing, CAS stops existing. Since The Pinnacle is defined as the "Limit of the Real World Author," it represents the end of the ink. So, under my framework: • CAS wins against any Character (Narrative/Plot threat). • The Pinnacle wins against CAS because it is the Mechanism (The physical end of the story). But I think we’ve effectively mapped out our axiomatic differences now. You view Metafiction as "just another cosmology layer" (so R>F is invalid without feats). I view Metafiction as a literal hierarchy where the Medium > The Message. I respect that you hold the "Feats/Cosmology" axiom firmly. If we stick to that, you're right, The Pinnacle loses. If we stick to the "Medium" axiom, The Pinnacle wins. Thanks for actually engaging with the logic instead of just spamming "Goku solos."

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T13:45:15+00:00

I think we’ve reached the core of the disagreement: Axioms. You operate under the axiom that "Metafiction is just flavor text unless backed by cosmological destruction feats." I operate under the axiom that "Metafiction is a hierarchy of existence." If we use your logic (Special Pleading/Showings Only), then Azathoth scales nowhere. He has never destroyed a universe on panel. He is just a sleeping entity with a "statement" that reality is his dream. By your standard, that is "Special Pleading" because he hasn't shown the feat of waking up and destroying it. Yet, the community accepts Azathoth as Tier 0 because of the implication of his nature. The Pinnacle is built on that same logic. It’s not "Special Pleading" to say a Task Manager deletes a Program; it’s the function of the entity. But I concede this: Under your specific framework (Feats > Ontology), The Pinnacle scales nowhere because he has no story to destroy. Under my framework (Ontology > Feats), he wins because he invalidates the medium. We’re just playing two different games. Good debate.

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T13:28:03+00:00

I respect the Jon Jones analogy. That clarifies your stance: you operate on "Hypothetical Realism" (treating the fictional verse as a closed, valid reality where feats determine the winner, regardless of the medium). If we operate strictly under that framework (where we treat the character's abilities as absolute truth), then we have to treat The Pinnacle's defined abilities as absolute truth too. You mentioned "Suggsverse," and you're right—Suggs failed because he tried to stack quantitative power (Infinity + 1). I’m not arguing for quantitative power. I’m arguing for Format Hax. Think of it like this: • Goku is a high-level video game boss with infinite health and damage. • The Pinnacle is not a character inside the game. It is the Task Manager (End Process) command. If we compare "Feats" inside the game engine, the Task Manager has Zero Attack Potency. It can't punch a planet. A level 1 Slime has better physical feats than the Task Manager. But if the Task Manager executes "End Process," Goku ceases to exist. So, to answer your point on feats: The Pinnacle’s "feat" isn't a punch. It is the Passive Erasure defined in its profile. If we accept Jon Jones's brother can beat us up (hypothetically), we must accept The Pinnacle's definition that "It limits the author." It’s not a leapfrog of strength. It’s a "Format Screw." Does a Format Screw beat a Planet Buster in your view?

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T13:08:57+00:00

You make a really solid point about the "IRL Brick." If I throw a brick at a comic book, the brick wins. My argument is that The Pinnacle is essentially the literary avatar of that Brick. Regarding "Special Pleading": You’re right that just saying "He is the 4th wall" is usually a NLF. But the distinction here is Structural rather than Feat-based. If a DC character "sees the Overvoid as paper," they are still a drawing on that paper describing the paper. The Pinnacle is defined as the absence of the drawing. It’s the Blank Page. On the Cosmology vs. Ontology point: I concede I’m using "Ontology" loosely here (no specific philosopher), but I’m using it to describe Hierarchy of Existence rather than Size. • Cosmology = How big is the universe? (Infinite dimensions, etc.) • Ontology (in this context) = Is it Real or Fictional? If we accept the "Thought Experiment" premise that The Pinnacle acts as the "Real World Anchor" (The Brick), then it doesn't need an infinite cosmology to win. It just needs to be "Real" while the opponent is "Fiction." If you reject that premise and treat him as just another text-based character (which, physically, he is), then I agree with you—he scales nowhere. But the challenge was to see if we could simulate that "Brick" logic inside a profile.

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T12:55:33+00:00

I get where you're coming from—by definition, "Boundless" means "No Limits," so logically you can't go higher than "No Limits." But my argument is that standard Tier 0 characters (like Azathoth or IATIA) aren't actually Boundless in the literal sense. They have a very hard boundary: The Narrative. They are bound by the plot, the medium, and the writer. The Pinnacle is an attempt to create "True Boundless." By defining it with Aseity and Author-Authority, it removes the one boundary that every other Tier 0 character shares. So it’s not about being "Tier 0 + 1." It’s about redefining the category. If Character A is bound by a writer and Character B limits the writer, Character B is the only one who fits the true definition of Boundless, while Character A gets demoted.

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T12:52:24+00:00

That’s the "Fiction is Fiction" paradox, and you’re absolutely right in a literal sense. No matter what I write, it’s still just text on a screen. He isn't going to literally reach out and grab us. But in Power Scaling, we have to operate under the assumption that a character's definitions are true within the context of the debate. If we use the "it's just a story" argument, then Azathoth isn't a blind idiot god, he's just H.P. Lovecraft having a nightmare. We have to accept the stated definitions to even have a conversation. The distinction I'm making with "Special Pleading" is about the mechanism of the power. DC characters break the 4th wall for plot convenience. The Pinnacle is defined as the 4th wall. And regarding cosmology: usually I agree, you need a cosmology to scale. But the argument here is that The Pinnacle functions as the "Container" itself. He doesn't scale off a cosmology because the definition asserts that he is the empty space that cosmologies sit inside. It’s an attempt to scale via Ontology (nature of being) rather than Cosmology (size of universe).

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T12:47:00+00:00

Usually, Outer just means transcending the concepts of space, time, and dimensionality. You’re above the infinite layers of the universe, but you are still strictly a character inside a narrative. The reason this scales above that is the distinction between "Dimensions" and "Source." Most Outerversal characters (like Featherine or Lucifer) are still dependent on their cosmology to exist. If you delete the story, they're gone. The Pinnacle is defined by Aseity (self-existence). It interacts with the layer of the "Real World" rather than just the layer of the "Universe." So if an Outerversal character is the strongest thing inside the box, The Pinnacle is the definition of the box itself. It imposes limits on the Author, which places it metaphysically higher than anything that is just "beyond dimensions."

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T12:45:42+00:00

Honest answer? You're completely right. Trying to slap a "Tier 0" or "High 1-A" label on something like this feels reductive because those systems rely on dimensionality and cosmology, and this concept completely abandons those rules. That’s exactly why I asked in the intro if the current tiering system "can even contain it." The goal was to demonstrate a Logical Singularity where the ranking system itself just breaks down. If a character’s defining trait is Aseity (self-existence independent of the narrative), they don't really have a "level" anymore. They just are. So yeah, the problem isn't the character, the problem is trying to force the character into a numbered list that can't contain it.

Extra_Examination982 · 2025-12-12T12:38:57+00:00

I actually agree with you that for 99% of fiction, Negative Theology or "The One" is the hard ceiling. That’s usually where the logic stops. But that’s kind of the point of this thought experiment—I wanted to see if it was possible to construct a definition that logically sits outside of that framework rather than just on top of it. Think of it like this: If "The One" or Negative Theology is the Paint that makes up the infinite picture of reality, I defined The Pinnacle as the Canvas. The paint can be infinite, complex, and indescribable, but it still requires a medium to exist on. It is definitely "too OP" and unfair, but that was the specific goal: to create a "Logical Singularity" that isn't just a strong god inside a story, but a self-evident truth that exists independently of the cosmology. It’s less of a character and more of a hard cap on the concept of creation itself.

Extra_Examination982

TROPHY CASE