M-maybe we could not quibble about unsure freeform pseudo-gamey 'balancing' acts regarding so-and-so's invulnerability or non-invulnerability, without any objective point of 'this is entirely rational/irrational and can't be dissented against' to work from, and think about, y'know, how so-and-so aspect suits and advances the narrative in a compelling fashion. Yes? Maybe? N-no?

[size=nope]please[/qqcodeashit]