This thread was inspired by recent, as well as past, debates involving what a given character is capable of.
In debates, on-panel feats are of obvious value in pointing out what a character can do. The only real drawback is the posting of PIS moments, which can be a tough call.
On the other hand: there are some characters -- generally those with open powersets -- where inferring abilities never actually shown (or rarely shown) makes sense when logically reasoned from other (more-consistent) on-panel feats.
Should inferred abilities be allowed in debates? Should feats be restricted to those purely on-panel? And if so, what is the criteria for judging whether something is PIS or not? Doesn't this imply a certain amount of inferential reasoning to weed out PIS (ie, is it not a subjective call)? And if this type of inferential reasoning is allowed, then why not such reasoning for inferring unseen/rarely seen abilities, as long as they are logically deduced?
I'm curious where most members stand.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
on panel statements will occasionally allow people to, either bring their personal opinion into things, and/or guesstimate what they think a character should be capable of, by applying their opinion to a given statement. that just has 'fail' written all over it imo. that being said, on panel feats are quite incontrovertible, due to the fact that we as readers are actually seeing a demonstration of power/ability from said character. this leaves us with no real interpretation to come up with.
imo, that's why on panel feats always trump on panel statements. always.
Gender: Female Location: Poppin Pills on the Rainbow Bridge
Meh, but sometimes obscure abilities such as "reactive evolution" leaves a characters true abilities up as a matter of a particular members interpretation.
Darwin for example should be able to do anything i;e flight, if no edible food is available transmutation or evolve to the point where he doesn't require it, self-regeneration, invulnerablility, telepathy, and telekinesis dependent upon the situation. And although it's implied that he could potentially do these things there outta his powerset until the feats are actually performed.
Gender: Female Location: Poppin Pills on the Rainbow Bridge
I'd just rather see a character do something as opposed to it being said he has the ability to do it. Logan can say all day that he's the best there is, but until i actually see it i don't believe it
All else being equal, I would agree. Eg, Spider-Man stating Sentry stalemated Galactus doesn't equal Sentry actually doing it. On the other hand, if Sentry had stalemated, say, Aegis and Tenegrous, then it would be more logical to assume that Spider-Man's statement would be somewhat accurate.
But I'm talking more about something like this: currently in the Wonder Woman vs Silver Surfer in h2h thread, there seems to be this controversy: WW has demonstrated time and time again her incredible hand speed at blocking multi-vector, high-speed attacks. Having demonstrated such sensorimotor fleetness, wouldn't it be logical to assume she could strike with equal fleetness, even if this has never/rarely been shown on-panel? Another example would be the Surfer, with the now famous flightspeed = or doesn't = combatspeed argument (I won't repeat it here; we all know the points and counterpoints raised).
And what about the Really Famous Panther-SS Armbar, or the Most Famous Of All, Batkick (against Hulk, against Cap Marvel)? These are on-panel feats, yet most of us (I think) have decided these are PIS. Why? What reasoning applies? Much of it seems inferential, based on what we know of these characters and their powersets.
When is inferential reasoning on what a character can do (or shouldn't be able to do) legit? Is an on-panel feat a necessary starting point, or can logic, at times, fill in the gaps (just as logic, at times, determines what is or isn't PIS)?
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Ok, let's use the rulk vs supes debate as an example. Someone wanted a feat of supes BFR'ing a brick comparable to rulk. Do you really need to see superman bfr someone like rulk to know that he has the strength to do so. He has lifted and thrown much heavier things, so is it wrong to assume he can throw rulk? I would say no.
When you have a medium like comics that are too often plot driven action drivel, passed off from writer to writer and from point of view to point of view, there's gonna be a great amount of inconsistency. We all know that, and so we all know that characters have to be judged (for the most part) based on their average ability, not their best ability shown.
For feats vs. statements, feats should almost always win... if there's a feat that's grossly disproportionate to the characters ability (see: Surfer Armbar), then it still stands just like any other feat to be discredited. But it's generally easier to discredit statements than feats, simply because so many writers are prone to hyperbole. What sounds good sells books better than what's accurate according to a decade-old issue of a completely different comic.
As for logical ability... it's a case by case scenario. There are areas in comics that fluctuate far more than others, and so are areas that quickly become supposition with more to counter than to support.
Like speed... Surfer could be written to have FTL reflexes. But we've seen him get hit time after time by things ridiculously slower than light... the only real solution is to say that since we know nothing about using those sorts of powers, it's really just a baseless guessing game to say that he can move at any speed that isn't supported on panel with feats.
At the same time, there are characters like Sersi and Firestorm that we can probably infer can turn anything into anything else, provided they know the math behind it (at least, for Firestorm). There's not a lot to counter this, and tons to support it, and it's not something that is routinely overlooked by writers like speed is.
I agree, but surfer DOES have on panel FTL feats. So it isn't baseless to say he has FTL speed and reflexes. If he is maneuvering at FTl, he HAS to have FTL reflexes, there is not other logical explanation, IMO.
And yet, we've seen him get hit by punches, bricks, energy blasts and more.
For all we know, the power cosmic allows him to acquire ZOMG reaction speed only with 100% focus while traveling at FTL speeds in a fairly straight line on his board.
Normally, suggesting something like that would be ridiculous... but when we've seen characters with supposedly FTL reflexes get trumped so many times by objects that should be standing still to them...
So I guess the Flash doesn't have FTL reaction time either seeing as how he is faster than ohhhh, basically everyone, yet he still get's tagged in his stories.
Flash gets tagged for all kinds of reasons. He's distracted protecting innocents, he can't run too fast or he risk killing people with burning air and sonic booms, he is fighting multiple opponents who are used to fighting him and know how to take him down.
I don't consider it a leap. I consider it perfectly logical to assume that superman could lift 100,000,000 people all at once, even though it hasn't been shown on panel. Same thing here with the surfer.
Guys, I'm going to be addressing this point and a few other points about rules, power sets, panel showings, being in character, etc. I hope to send out PMs to posters I know, who have been here a good while and our best and brightest. I also may pin a thread to discuss everything. Darthgoober made a similar thread a few months back and I think we need to address some of these points.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 25th, 2008 02:40 PM
The essential force of reality
