#like they argue about canon and then proceeds to use fanon concepts like 💀💀

[arosspeaksnonsense]

YALL PLEASE CONTINUE, I WANT TO SEE WHAT OTHERS THOUGHT OF THIS

See, I do think that the fate/destiny and the fgod/fgoc concept is neat, however as @plasma-studios say, I don't really see the multi verse having a limited capacity either, as also stated that the concept of a multi verse is kind of, infinity.

I was always stumped when it comes to a balance with creation and destruction, because honestly to me, it doesn't really makes sense for ink and error to have agreed to the terms of the truce, not to mention the fact that the multi verse just goes on without them, kind of don't make sense if they were the roles of creation and destruction themselves, (not to mention the aus' nature in general)

As again, stated, Creation and Destruction are like (or is) a Force of Nature, a part of Nature, without them, everything just kinda goes haywire.

Iam always ALWAYS stumped when approached with the idea of a truce, when incorporating such concepts, they should already work naturally?? If there were to settle a truce, there should be a conflict that effects the entire multi verse, enough to make ink and error care, enough to make a truce, enough to send creation and destruction in disharmony to harmony, but the question lies, how and why

How did they agree? How do their roles tie into Destruction and Creation? How does Destruction and Creation tie into them?

Why did they have a truce? Why now? Why did they agree?

What was the catalyst that caused harmony between the two forces of nature when it has started in disharmony

How and Why does Creation and Destruction even work in such a place such as the MultiVerse?

Of what purpose? Of what significance?

What does the two concept even MEAN in the multi verse? Its importance?

When shown in one concept, that the multi verse can live just fine without the two forces, what was the two even for

Anyways, sorry if this might mess with your head, I just wanted to rant/ramble about this since both concept just doesn't really make sense for me..especially with the way I incorporate Ink and Error as Creation and Destruction itself, being literal forces of nature. Or at least vessels for the concept of Creation and Destruction.

so. i had some Thoughts.

If there's a balance, whether it be Creation and Destruction, Positivity and Negativity, then neither can be eternally stronger than the other, nor can they be eternally weaker. Thus, neither can be eternally victorious, and neither can be eternally defeated.

Ink’s problem, currently, is that there must be a balance between Creation and Destruction, thus Ink’s goal of protecting the AUs is not fully achievable as he must allow some destruction in order for the same amount of Creation to exist and thrive. So, the current issue to be solved right now is how to ensure that full Creation is achieved without paving the way for full Destruction as, again, Creation must be balanced out by Destruction. If he seeks full Creation, then by the Balance’s rules he will face full Destruction as well. However, Creation has rules, as Destruction does. Hence, if he broke some of Creation’s rules while still abiding by some, technically he, Creation, would no longer be Creation in its entirety due to breaking some of Creation’s rules while also would not be Destruction due to him abiding by some of Creation’s rules. Hence, Creation would no longer be Creation, but would neither be Destruction. Therefore, if Creation was no longer Creation, but Destruction was still Destruction, then technically, Creation would no longer be viewed as Destruction’s equal and no longer bound to balancing out or being balanced out, and would instead be viewed as a neutral party. Therefore, Ink would be free to gain dominance over Destruction and hence be free to achieve full Creation.