The official discord link if you wish to join the discord: https://discord.gg/j5RKwCvAFu
The background art comes from Cherylann1960.
Creation vs Destruction
Introduction
Creation vs. Destruction is a topic based off the yin and yang of the concepts Creation and Destruction. Which are dualistic opposites but often considered the same. This topic generally comes into the question of which is more impressive and more powerful, though more powerful does not intrinsically refer to physical strength but an impact it has on the world. For the simplicity of the viewers and we will be explaining tiering wise how this operates.
Explanation
Creation is defined as:
- cre·a·tion
/krēˈāSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the action or process of bringing something into existence. 2. the bringing into of existence of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God.
Destruction is define as:
- de·struc·tion
/dəˈstrəkSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired. 2. the action or process of killing or being killed.
With this two in mind we have a clear case of what these both act as. They are exact opposites, while creation brings into existence, destruction removes from existence. According to the law of conservation, matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. This same ideology applies to energy. Thus creating from nothing and destruction to nothing is already breaking the laws of physics and is essentially manipulating reality. Though under simpler terms we normally list destruction as just destruction of the physical object we see and not all matter, so what if one creates from this standpoint? Do they receive the same tier? The answer becomes more complicated here.
Creation in itself is not done on a lesser simpler scale like destruction. As an example, one can destroy a building because it will not be reducing the entire makeup of the bulding to nothingness. While on the opposite side, creating the building in most cases, would only apply to creating the building from nothing. In this case, this cannot be a use of energy, as energy cannot be created or destroyed, and breaks the laws of physics, thus it would fall under Reality Warping, and not be a tierable feat.
Though there are cases where creation can be used as a viable way for tiering:
- Creation in works where it's directly noted someone is using energy to do said feat would be something that would scale, as in this case the fiction is acknowledging that they're using the scalar quantity to create the object.
- Creation through the process of mass-energy conversion would be applicable as this directly utilizes energy.
- Scenarios such as a contextually omnipotent character creating a universe would be applicable as they can realistically o anything and are already in a way beyond the standard system we judge for energy. Along with this we can reasonably surmise that they would be able to destroy the universe they created.
Completely unviable scales of creation feats are:
- Background Feats: Background feats are when a character scaling to a creation feat is based off something in the background. If the character does a white flash of light and a background with stars are made, then that's fine to scale to physicals. However if the background has the area slowly overtime create the area or a character enters this dungeon, and happens to enter a room with stars in it, neither of these should scale.
- Off Screen Creation: Off screen creation has the similar scrutiny to background feats, for these it should be naturally shown characters are more similarly of this level, usually characters that are creator gods get a pass as their cosmic nature would mean they physically scale to the feat. However, other characters need further context. Context includes, destruction feats on this level or legitimate sustaining feats.
- Creation through Hax: Creation through hax should not scale to physicals unless the hax in question directly scales to the persons physicals.
- Illusions: This could also include a character doing a transformation transition and stars suddenly appearing in the background, this is merely a visual effect and isn’t actually happening in-universe (do note characters acknowledging this would not suddenly prove the visual effect true as that would just be 4th wall awareness).
- Vagueness: If a character has a visual feat that is extremely vague and clearly there just for flare it is not considered a valid creation feat. Examples of these are things such as characters in series having a transformation sequence that shows a starry sky in the background or the like.
Examples
Examples of Applicable Creation Feats:
- Vaati creating a realm with stars and nebulae: Here Vaati directly says "Now, you will see the true power of the Light Force and proceeds to create a realm, thus we can apply that energy has been used to create this realm as he denotes this is due to the power of the Light Force, which is directly noted in the Zelda universe to have "infinite power" further showing this is using energy.
- The Golden Goddesses creating the multiverse: The Golden Goddesses are omnipotent creator gods, where even their relic, The Triforce, is considered an omnipotent artifact.
- Zone Guardians creating their zones in OFF: In OFF Zone Guardians are drawing from the infinite power of the Sun and converting it into energy to create their zones, thus they apply to mass-energy conversion.
Examples of Non-Applicable Creation Feats:
- Fire Emblem mages making a galaxy-like background with their attacks.
- Kirby from Kirby of the Stars having stars in the background during his transformation sequence.
Disclaimer
One major argument against any creation feats is that the author is not thinking of it being a feat thus it should not be scalable. While yes, the author generally does not interpret creation feats as this, contrary to popular belief, authors don’t intend a character even with virtually any feats. Authors don't normally think about the level of damage an attack inflicts, they simply do visual showings because they think it "looked cool". Using Butch Hartman again, here he is legitimately admitting he didn’t realize a cloud dispersion feat was impressive. In Xenoblade 2 there’s a direct statement that Pyra sank three continents, this would be an extremely blatant feat yet the authors later on make her unable to break through a wall. Yajirou Kojima from Grenadier could cut a missile in half yet thought he wouldn’t be able to cut through a boulder. Jimmy Hopkins from Bully can punch marble pillars and turn them into dust, takes no real damage from being hit with a sledgehammer through a wall, and many more objective wall feats yet a huge part of a mission is that he can’t break through regular wooden planks and needs the sledgehammer to do it. Then there are DC Writers that believe Superman is below planet despite the various higher physical feats he’s pulled over the decades. There are many more but these are just examples of very blatant showings where still the author doesn’t realize a character is actually at a level, this is one of the major reasons Plot-Induced Stupidity, Inconsistencies, and Outlier exist not because of creation feats but because of feats in general. To simply argue that creation feats aren’t useable because they have anti feats behind them is dishonest to destruction feats having the exact same problem, no fictional verse will ever be perfect, all of them will have anti feats, this is a common ideology, what should be taken is the most consistent amount of feats and viewing how a tier will work for the verse. The real discussion should be on if a creation feat even used energy to begin with, the scalar quantity used for our tiering system.
Note
- Do note that arguments such as “creation of a house isn’t 8-C” does not work in this case as the creation of a house is done via various tools and objects of construction that is done over a very long period of time and is nothing like creating something from your own energy in an instant, thus this argument is a false equivalence.
- Do also note for debates such as starry sky creations if the background shown is outer space and contains objects that look like stars it is fine to assume them stars, especially if they contain nebulae in them.
- Do note while Pocket Realities do normally in theories fall under different laws of physics, if the pocket reality shown in question still operates under our world’s gravity and such we will assume the feat is equal to if someone did it outside of a pocket reality. The other argumentation that a character might be stronger in a pocket reality will also be taken into account, however if the other characters beats them in the pocket reality just as they did outside of the pocket reality, then it will not be assumed they're that much stronger.
