Gone, gone, O' form of man...
Due to the complexities involved in our current character template, as well as our current naming conventions guidelines, it is necessary to separate Etrigan from Jason Blood. All information on this page should deal directly with Etrigan. Powers and abilities that are unique to Jason Blood should not be included here. All relevant information pertaining to Blood has been moved to Jason Blood (New Earth). --Brian Kurtz 14:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
With taking the above into account, which I completely agree with, why do we have Jason Blood listed as an alias for Etrigan and vice versa? Their souls may be conjoined, but they are individuals. They are not the same person, they just inhabit the same space. It's a minor bugbear but worth questioning. Arise Etrigan (talk) 07:04, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with this. I believe it should be removed. You may proceed when you see fit. - S.S. (talk) 04:39, December 5, 2016 (UTC)
At no time is it said that Etrigan is invulnerable; he has "only" superhuman durability. Cold, when moderate, would not cause him any discomfort. But extreme cold, like a freezing ray, being magical or not, would naturally do damage to him. Then include cold as a vulnerability is a redundance. The same with magic, with exception of holy magic. Also, at no time is it said that Etrigan is magically invulnerable (he would only have greater resistance due to being a magical creature), then he can be summoned as anyone or anything. Kowalewski (talk) 00:31, November 17, 2017 (UTC)
- True. At no time is it said Etrigan is invulnerable, including on his article. If extreme cold harms him (with significant incident cited) why is it redundant to include it as a vulnerability? It doesn’t say Etrigan is invulnerable to magic either, but magic is a broad category and specific forms are weaknesses (again, with citation). Etrigan can potentially be summoned by anyone and even a specific thing in one instance which is exactly why it can be a weakness. Getting dragged away at a crucial moment can be very inconvenient to say the least, and to be controlled, well, losing one’s free will to another is certainly not an asset. I don’t understand your argument for removing pertinent, factual information from weakness other than having a specific/narrow definition of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘weakness’. “Vulnerability: capable of or susceptible to being wounded or hurt.” You don’t have to be invulnerable to have a vulnerability, in fact, someone who is invulnerable shouldn’t have any vulnerabilities by definition, so if anything is redundant it’s technically the invulnerability category. --Arise Etrigan (talk) 09:05, November 17, 2017 (UTC)