Merge: ImplacableMan vs TheJuggernaut: The Juggernaut

I don't know if this discussion is ongoing, but from most of the examples I've seen, the difference between Determinator, Implacable Man, and The Juggernaut seems to be as follows: the Determinator can be hurt and powers his way through the pain; the Implacable Man can be hurt but any pain simply does not register on his face, and The Juggernaut can's be injured in the first place.

The comments about how the implacable man is usually chasing someone, and the juggernaut has somewhere to go and just won't be stopped also seem to hold true.

Ambar: to further the distinction

The Determinator: Normal or Badass Normal who keeps on going.

Implacable Man: Robot, superhuman or some other supernatural/fantastic creature that is stalking someone and cannot be put down by conventional means. Emphasis on "conventional", i.e. things that would kill an ordinary person like cars or bullets can still affect it, slow it down or entrap it but won't kill it. They usually have an Achilles' Heel.

The Juggernaut: Robot, superhuman or some other supernatural/fantastic creature that cannot be slowed down by conventional means. Things that would shatter mountains, destroy buildings and leave a massive city-sized crater in the ground won't affect it. It can shrug off The Worf Barrage with no signs of slowing down.

In short, no merge. The Juggernaut is distinct as a trope by the fact that it is invincible and is a force of nature.

Cider: comparing Thor/Hulk, who are in Marvel's top strength tier, to 99% of the Earth's populace is still a relative distinction. They're both explicitly two of the strongest superhumans in the MU and The Hulk is also The Juggernaut depending on whether he's the hero or villain. It doesn't undermine the definition of The Juggernaut if they can be stopped/fought by someone who is strong and invincible enough to also qualify as The Juggernaut.

By your distinction, it sounds like The Juggernaut is simply Implacable Man, except more invincible, and that a specific target for The Juggernaut is not always necessary.

Very difficult to stop versus nearly impossible to stop sounds like The Same But More, honeslty. Is there some other distinction?

edited 18th Apr '12 5:49:36 PM by ThatHuman

The distinction is "human" versus "superhuman".

The Implacable Man cannot be stopped by things that would normally stop, kill or annihilate a normal creature. We're talking bullets, cars, fire,etc.

The Juggernaut cannot be stopped by things that would brush aside a normal creature and continue on its way unabated and would be so utterly powerful and destructive that it should, in theory, stop anything in its path.

The best way to think about the difference is being hit by a car versus being hit by a tank. A car could hit you but the car would take damage and if it hit too many people, it would break down. By contrast, a really big and well-armored tank could steamroll over plenty of people without stopping or slowing down and essentially, whatever creature it ran over would be of no consequence to it.

If the creature can come back from being hit by a car, it's Implacable Man. If the creature can brush aside the tank as if it were the tank and the tank were the human, it's "The Juggernaut, bitch!"

Does a Juggernaut necessarily need to be pursuing anything?

I mean, a big huge monster that wanders around in circles, occasionally stopping to snack on a nearby forest can be a Juggernaut- It's nearly impossible to stop anything that big.

An Implacable Man is defined by the fact that they pursue someone. To the ends of the earth, hell itself it need be.

Meanwhile, a Juggenaut may chase someone, but they aren't defined by that. They're defined by being impossible to stop once they start going.

I would not say they need a merger, being distinct tropes with a little possible overlap.

The primary aspect of The Juggernaut is that they're beyond-invincible but without the "They're pursuing something and can't be stopped", any invincible character could qualify; that's why The Juggernaut is best defined as much by what their invincibility enables them to do unabated as the invincibility itself.

I like what Dark Nemesis is saying. I've always thought of the two as the difference between Healing Factor and Nigh-Invulnerable. You can run over an Implacable Man and hurt him, maybe even put him out of comission for a little bit, but he'll be back and chasing you again. If you try to run over the Juggernaut either the car will crunch against him or be batted away like a bug on a windshield.

The two supernatural aspects are good to distinguish but there should be more to keep them apart so we don't have to have this discuss again in a few months. 'Implacable' means 'unable to appease' and 'merciless' like a predator after prey.

I think there's a lot more similarity between Determinator and Implacable Man than between either of the other two and The Juggernaut.

In my view, the Juggernaut is literally unstoppable; a force of nature. It should be extremely large (at least house-sized, bigger still is better), impossible to stop by any means, and force you to run. The two best examples I can think of are The Giant of Babil from Final Fantasy IV and Juggernaut from Legend Of Legaia. These creatures are colossal, mountain-sized behemoths that can absolutely devastate a large city without so much as batting an eye, and are effectively impervious to damage at all. See also the various Juggernaut creatures in Magic The Gathering and Dungeons And Dragons for more such examples (though less triumphant).

An implacable man, on the other hand, should be human, or at least somewhat humanoid (or whatever species is the focus of the work) that for whatever reason simply cannot be stopped.

A determinator can be basically any of the above. This trope is defined more by attitude and determination than actual physical attributes or ability to take/dish out damage.

And that is my $0.02.

And I'll state it again. That's all the same but more. Determinator isn't about lack of power, it is about lack of giving up. Taking damage is only part of it, they could just refuse a Stern Chase that keeps escaping them even if they are never really hurt or keep applying for a position they keep being denied.

As is, more invincible doesn't cut it. You "Juggernaut" is an unstoppable force of nature? So basically he's the Juggernaut when fighting mortals and "just" an implacable man when the opponent is also a force of nature? Enemy who is hard to damage, that's all both tropes are, the wick check has been done and if left that way it is too samey and should be merged.

Nigh-Invulnerable foe chasing you and Nigh Invulnerable foe you're chasing or otherwise trying to contain are fundamentally different, that would justify leaving the two pages separate. Doesn't register damage? No, that's Only a Flesh Wound and Didn't Need Those Anyway!. Making Implacable Man the Same But more to another set of tropes just causes another set of problems.

edited 27th Apr '12 12:14:56 PM by Cider

The way I see it, applying your logic would mean we'd also have to merge Up To Eleven and Beyond the Impossible. If you want to merge those, you're free to do so, but there is a point where The Same But More does actually lead to something distinct.

According to Up To Eleven's page, the difference between them is one aims to top something else and the other breaks the rules of the setting.

He has chainsaw. How can we make that more dangerous? Coat it in dart frog poison! Up to eleven. How do we make him really dangerous? Give him a chainsaw that can cut through adamantium! But up until this point, Adamatium has proven to be 100% indestructible, that's impossible? Not anymore, we've gone beyond the impossible!

They seem like the can overlap, but simply turning up to eleven to its logical conclusion will not make it impossible. (Two double bladed, nuclear powered poison chainsaws) while doing something "less impossible", "What if his chainsaw is lined with dragon teeth? Our Dragons don't have teeth!", is still impossible.

edited 9th Oct '12 1:06:21 PM by Cider

I see no reason why that cannot be the same distinction here. Implacable Man can simply refer to someone who's simply somewhat stronger or otherwise more powerful than everyone else. The Juggernaut is orders of magnitude above anything else.

If I recall the bit of Hindu Mythology that I do know, the Juggernaut was basically the god (aspect of a god?) of movement and inertia. You don't slow down or stop a Juggernaut as you would an Implacable Man. You simply get trampled overfoot and the Juggernaut doesn't even notice.

The Juggernaut isn't necessarily fighting anyone. It is just as likely to ignore an attacker completely as it ts to defend itself.

An example of a Juggernaut that isn't an Implacable Man is a golem that's been told to chop wood but never told when to stop. No amount of physical force is going to stop that golem from chopping wood. Stand between it and wood and it will trample you. It won't even brush you aside. It will simply walk through you as though it's unaware of your presence (and it might be). Stab it with a knife and it won't notice. If the knife sticks, the golem won't bother to remove it. It will just keep chopping wood until there is no wood left on the entire planet. The only way to stop it is to deactivate it or seal it in a can.

Fnu, I don't have a problem with that distinction but that's not how the pages are made distinct at this time, I'm arguing it should be that way(if they aren't merged).

No, several magnitudes doesn't matter. Shiva is unstoppable to puny humans. Nothing we can do but pray to Brama or maybe one of his lesser aspects like Krishna. Krishna would also have a hard time beating Shiva, even if he did their battle would could destroy the universe as we know it, and kill us indirectly. So Shiva is humanity's Juggernaut and Krishna's Implacable Man? He's a nigh invulnerable adversary either way. See, 'Same But More' rarely works.

If Shiva's methodically destroying humanity, laughing off all our futile weapons to rub in, instead of humanity trying to stop Shiva(or Krishna) from cutting down a forest for lumber or even trying to stop Shiva from using a specific restroom, those are completely different situations. The human extinction scenario still works in a way, Shiva would be our implacable man and his fellow godly aspect's Juggernaut but not because of power levels but because of his intent and the way the two parties handled it.

Reverse the scenario. Ravana attacks Krishna or Shiva with intent to kill. He's not a major threat to either of them but his boon means their power can't kill him, they can only push him away or move out of his reach and he won't stop chasing after them. Humanity wants Ravana to stop pestering our gods but we're even less equipped to deal with him, it takes a weapon capable of erasing the ocean just to give Ravana a blister. He's our Juggernaut and the god's Implacable Man, despite the inverted power levels, because of his intent and the reactions to it. Not the same but more, just overlap.

We're just trying to stop Ravana from chopping wood? Then he's a Juggernaut to godly aspects and man alike. If he goes Omnicidal Maniac, he's an implacable man to everything. If they aren't merged, that seems like the best way to make the pages more distinct. At least a few users already think that way.

Hmm. Upon further reflection, I think my main objection is that Implacable Man needs to be renamed. It sounds like it can only apply to humanoid creatures (hence, Implacable Man), when the trope is meant to apply universally to all creatures, including gods, robots, etc.

I think you may be overthinking that one.

As I read it, The Juggernaut cannot be stopped or slowed down, while the Implacable Man will never give up, happily chewing his way out of the ropes that slowed him down but good. Am I right>

The page image on The Juggernaut pretty much says it all.

@Michael: You are correct.

This has festered long enough. Crowner's here, vote!

The Juggernaut tramples over every obstacle that's put in its path. The Implacable Man keeps going no matter what's thrown in its way.

It's not necessarily about their goal.

edited 23rd May '12 6:47:18 PM by troacctid

I think the shortest description of the difference is simply "The Implacable Man can be slowed down."

Except that's not enough to justify having two tropes with the same description, only one having the same situation on a bigger scale. A key part of the description even goes on about the trouble of using The Juggernaut multiple times because if it was over come before then its hard to buy as unstoppable or that its invulnerability makes up for whatever other short coming it has.

It's the same, The Same But More, if the only thing separating the Implacable man from the Juggernaut is if they were ever stopped. I mean, out on the ocean with nothing more deadly that a jagged piece of wood that Giant Squid might as well of been the Juggernaut because they're was no way the protagonist was going to stop it. That also means the multiverse killing Abraxas is only the implacable man because the local reality warper can slow him down.

Its the same situation, the only thing different is one party had more available to them. This is why we don't want same but more pages, and why these two being allowed to stay this way for so long is so strange. At least changing the Nigh Invulnerable enemy's goal brings up completely different ways for the story to go. If Implacable Man is interested in you, then the page image of The Juggernaut would not work because he clearly has no interest in Captain Britain. Similarly, the overwhelmingly powerful aliens from Skyline wouldn't be on the Juggernaut page because they do have a vested interest in the protagonists.

edited 9th Oct '12 1:13:44 PM by Cider

Then should we pull Determinator into this as well? Too stubborn to stay stopped?

Maybe you'll see the difference better if you don't think of it as a character trope. Try thinking of it as a plot trope.

You're being chased by the Terminator, and you hop a fence to try and get away. Implacable Man is when he stops, takes a moment to rip the fence out of the ground with his bare hands, tosses it aside, and then keeps following you—or, alternately, f you think the fence has stopped him, the camera cuts away, and you look behind and he's still following you, gasp! The Juggernaut is when he walks through the fence, leaving its trampled remains in his wake.

They are different ways to deal with obstacles in your way. Much like Bullet Dancing, Bullet Catch, Shoot the Bullet, and Dodge the Bullet are different ways to dodge bullets.

edited 24th May '12 12:59:46 PM by troacctid