Premise 1 Debunk

## Introduction

Powerscaling has two premises.

Premise 1: Fictional characters can be measured in power and quantified

Premise 2: These measured and quantifiable fictional characters can then be compared with other characters objectively.

Let's start with Premise 1.

### Argument From Contradiction

#### Physics Contradiction

Let's use the VSBW tiering system as a basis. Characters have 'feats'- speed, destruction, etc, that are then measured via the laws of physics in a process called 'calcing'. This results in strangely high interpretations of the characters. For instance, Saber is Island level and Relativistic, despite relying on armies, considering castles an obstacle, riding a horse, and so on.

The usual counterpoint to this is the concept of a separation between the amount of destruction an attack has and the amount of power an attack has. The former equals the latter, but the latter does not equal the former. A justification often repeated is that a rifle has more energy than a stick of dynamite (wall level), but causes less damage to the surroundings.

However, this violates the laws of physics. Energy is not 'condensed' like this, it always spreads out. No human being who has ever dealt with weaponry for the past thousand years would say that a bullet is wall-level, because the meaning of the very tier itself implies it can destroy a wall. In nature, joule output always correlates to destruction, unless the joules are slowly released.

### # Story Contradiction

Back to Saber. She is in all cases a typical historical fantasy character, one who's nature is not portrayed as a severe upturning of the natural order. She works at a supernal level, not at an apocalyptic level.

If she was Island level, why wouldn't the people of her time consider her an apocalyptic threat? 1 teraton of force is greater than the world's nuclear arsenal. One nuclear weapon would be seen as a divine force of destruction, let alone something hundreds of thousands of times greater. To make her even Town Level would imply the latter, not the former. But for her story and the role that Nasu intends for her, she is more like a Wall level or Small Building level character.

### # Argument From Intent

#### ## Author- omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent

The Author is omnipotent. Whatever they intend to be the case is so. Fictional characters have no free will.

The author is omniscient. There is nothing they do not know about their own works.

The author is omnipresent. Wherever the story is, they are too.

Let's see what an argument to refute each would look like.

The author's intent is not omnipotent- how? Are you saying that if the author wants their fictional character to be or do something, they wouldn't be able to for some reason? Then why? Someone in real life stopped them? The author is a normal human in their own reality. I'm not arguing their omnipotence in the real world, but in the fictional world that they made. They decided not do? The author's own will changed itself. Can fictional characters defy the will of their author?

Can Goku decide to walk out of the manga panel one day, with an independent will?

The answer is no. Everything a fictional character is, says, does, and all of the events that happen to them are determined solely by the will of the author.

The author is not omniscient- The author is incapable of being not omniscient. The fictional work is bound entirely within their minds, nowhere else. The text on the page, the ink on a paper, they are just reflections of what the true reality of the fictional work is, a purely mental existence. If the author 'forgets', it has in fact ceased to exist until they 'remember'.

The author is not omnipresent- Everything in a fictional work is because the author willed it to be so. The author's intent is everywhere. This does not mean that they are morally responsible for their work (art is above morality and is a separate existence from the real world), but it does mean that wherever their work is, they are.

#### ## Characters- powerless

When an author wants to make a story, they start by creating a narrative. Narratives have rules, like 'no guns' or 'has magic'. They have as many rules and as many interactions between those rules as they need. Then, an author populates a narrative with characters. Fictional characters do not have power of their own. As they have no will, why would they have any power? Goku doesn't have a power level. Neither does Nanoha. Or Guts. Or Superman. Or anyone else. All fictional characters are but extensions of the narrative, made when the author creates specific rules for the narrative that apply to the 'character' and nowhere else.

Let's give you an example. Yujiro Hanma can't throw punches, because again, he has no will or power of his own. The author, Keisuke Itagaki, wills him to punch. And he does it within the self-imposed constraints of the narrative that Keisuke made for himself to bind his creative potential. The rules of Baki's narrative allow Keisuke to make a character in a certain role named Yujiro Hanma, and make him destroy tanks and giant elephants by himself. These rules, are once more, self imposed. Even though the tone and theme of Baki do not allow for interdimensional monkeys, Keisuke could easily reveal that Yujiro Hanma was in fact an interdimensional monkey from the Far Planes who was sealed on Earth.

What would refute this- For a character to do something on their own without their author compelling them to.

#### ## Characters- mental constructs

Fictional characters have no real existence. They are like colors. Or the words on this page, in your head. Do you think all of the shades of blue have weight, mass, velocity? Do you think you could 'calc' the 'power level' of the color yellow?

#### ## AP =/= DC- incoherent

This will be simple.

Imagine for a moment, that you are a writer. A good one.

You have a planet-destroying character. Someone who you think, according to the rules of your narrative, you allow to destroy a planet. You have then, two options to go from here.'

Do you write the planet buster as someone with much less influence over the environment than what you intent for them to have all because the story won't work with that? If your answer to this is 'yes', then I am going to ask you another question. Would you make a character that could fly, or walk through walls, or any number of powers only to (for no reason at all!) not use those powers for the sake of the story. If your answer to those questions is again, 'yes', you are not a good writer.

Good writers know of the trust between the reader and the writer. The author, omnipotent, must still appease beings as omnipotent as themself. What VSBW makes of the authors of Blazblue, of Megami Tensei, of God of War- is to paint them as fools who, obsessed with power, make their characters simply unfit for the narrative they are made for. And then, instead of correcting this error, they decide to break the trust between their audience and themselves and write their characters as they are not.

These are not good writers who make stories that appeal to millions of people.

These are bad writers. And that's not the case here.

Here's another point.

You want your character to destroy planets. You are the omnipotent creator of the world and the story. So, you make a narrative with rules that support planet destruction. It's not easy. 99% of all stories ever written simply do not have narratives that support planet destruction. But it is doable.

Why would any author decide to pick the former instead of the latter?

## # What are your problems with Battleboarding

### ## It's taken too seriously.

People regularly insult each other and get into forum arguments dozens of pages long over the illusion that is the strength of a character. Because they think their scaling is real.

### ## It ruins media literacy and influences authors for the worse

The philosophy behind powerscaling is incoherent and applies to no fiction. But supporters of it bring their viewpoint onto other fictions. They say that X character 'objectively' is stronger than Y character.

### ## Addressing points ahead of time

'I like to powerscale because it's fun!' I never said 'stop powerscaling'. I said 'please don't think it means anything, it doesn't.' I'm fine with you discussing between friends who wins in a fight. Or who is stronger. I'm not fine with you arguing with others over differences in opinion. I'm not fine with you writing your stories in this fashion.

'What do you even want done?' I said this before. Acknowledge it isn't real. I want you to know that powerscaling is unsound and incoherent. I want you to be able to understand stories better.