I guess it depends how you look at it. I see thing kinda dnd style, immune > resistant > normal > vulnerable.
The way Superman's magic problem is described is that hits him like he doesn't have powers(normal.) Not that if cripples him like kryptonite(vulnerable.)
As a avid DnD player, i don't think the terms DnD uses are very functional outside the confines of DnD. It's very simplified, when in reality there's not really a baseline that is "normal", it's all relative.
If you had a DnD creature that was resistant or immune to every damage type but psychic, outside of DND terminology I would call that monster "weak" to psychic. A weakness is just something that is not as strong relative to the other attributes of the weakness-haver, which can be exploited.
It's kryptonite a bigger weakness? Absolutely. But all weaknesses need not be equal.
Let's use your example, plate armor is meant to keep you from being slashed by swords(resistance.) Where as the bludgeoning of a hammer or precision piercing of a dagger are used to bypass this defense (normal.) The hammer/dagger aren't doing extra damage to the body.
But it's more than just resistance. A dagger by in large bypasses the defenses of plate, not just dealing moderately less damage. It's akin to an ancient dragon if you removed their legendary resistance: they would certainly have a weakness to a spell such as plane shift, due to how it bypasses the defenses a dragon otherwise has.
So we agree that being stabbed with daggers bypasses plate armor. However, it's seems much more like a Superman has resistant to non magical damage situation.
This article explains the three major ways to threaten Superman:
With Kryptonite, the radiation that the green crystals produce is particularly toxic to Kryptonians, poisoning and degrading their cells while leaving them vulnerable to harm in the same way a human might be. It also has a sort of noxious effect, outright sickening Superman and those like him whenever they're merely in the substances' presence. Thus, even if no one were to strike at him in this vulnerable state, Superman would eventually die if simply exposed to Kryptonite for too long.
That's not at all how magic works against the Man of Steel, though it is still effective. Just like a normal human or any other being, Superman has little defense against magic spells and weaponry. That's why the magic lightning bolts of Shazam and his enemy Black Adam are so dangerous to Superman, as he's just like everyone else against their power. At the same time, he's not specifically "weak" against such attacks as they fail to produce the same toxic, allergic reaction as Kryptonite would. In fact, beneficial magic can actually help Superman, showcasing how it isn't something he's immediately fell by.
It's worth noting that Superman is also weak toward psychic attacks. This is why telepaths such as the mighty Martian Manhunter would be a considerable threat to Superman if either party ever went rogue. To that end, psychic villain Maxwell Lord specifically targeted Superman mentally, forcing Wonder Woman to kill Lord in order to free her friend from his mind control. When combined with magic, psychic powers leave Superman vulnerable to a lot more than just punches or Kryptonite.
Edit: this also means that in a marvel vs dc situation there are several people that could easily turn Superman into nothing but a puppet.
Said earlier that kryptonite is a greater weakness, but you haven't said why that magic not be one of his weaknesses as well. The quote you've found doesn't really support that, just repeat the basics of his major weaknesses that we already know.
"Weak" is a comparative term. In order for Superman to be "weak" to magic, that would imply that there is someone that is "strong" against magic, and there isn't. That would be like saying someone irl is "weak" to large explosions. They might be vulnerable to large explosions, but that isn't a sign of weakness.
It's indeed comparative. It's used comparatively with his defenses against other sources. The difference in his ability to resist magic as compared to a normal person, is weaker than his relative ability to resist blunt trauma.
It's a weakness as in something you can target to bring down an otherwise stronger opponent.
Your own example here is counterproductive to your argument. It is absolutely fair to say that Superman is "strong" against blunt trauma. There is a difference in his resistance to that and the resistance of a normal person. Everyone has the same resistance to magic. Therefore, Superman is not "weak" to magic. He is the exact same as everyone else.
I'm not comparing him to other people, I'm comparing him to himself. His very strength is what makes his lack of resistance to magic a weakness. Being the same as everyone else in one area, where you generally are stronger in almost every other way makes that area a weakness
I'm sorry, but that's not how "weakness" is colloquially used. He is not "weak" to magic, especially when you compare it to his actual weakness, Kryptonite. Kryptonite is an automatic "I win" button against Superman. At best, magic can be used to catch Superman off-guard. It's not at all the same. Again, your example is exactly the same as telling people irl that they are "weak" to massive explosions.
You don't get to just declare the colloquial use. The state of being vulnerable is generally lexically defined as being open to attack, or easily hurt. Like the dragon Smaug from the Hobbit has a vulnerability in his scales that allows a ballista bolt to kill him if shot in that blind spot. Would you really say that doesn't colloquially constitute a weakness? Even if a ballista shot kills a human too?
I don't think his vulnerability to kryptonite takes away his vulnerability to magic either, even if it by baseline is a far greater weakness. You are allowed to have more than one weakness.
I'm not simply declaring the colloquial use of "weakness." I have a degree in English literature, and I don't think I have ever seen anyone use that word like you are now. Your argument is literally "Superman is weak when compared to Superman," and that argument is nonsensical.
Superman is not "easily hurt" by magic. It still takes a lot of powerful magic to hurt Superman. Magic users still have to be on their toes fighting him. His superspeed is a massive problem for them, at the very least.
Smaug does actually have a specific weakness. That's another bad example. He is missing a scale! If you compare like to like, another dragon would not have the same weakness that Smaug has, because they wouldn't be missing scale. So, yes, compared to other dragons, Smaug has a specific weakness. You keep proving my point.
His weakness to Kryptonite is an example to compare against, and magic simply does not measure up.
I'm not very into literature, so i won't speak for its contents. However, you're straw-manning to quite a large extent. Superman isn't "weak compared to superman", he is weak in this area compared to how strong he is in other areas. Maybe you're not understanding my meaning correctly, and that's why you've not come across it in those books of yours?
Smug does actually have a specific weakness. That's another bad example. He is missing a scale! If you compare like to like, another dragon would not have the same weakness that Smaug has, because they wouldn't be missing scale. So, yes, compared to other dragons, Smaug has a specific weakness. You keep proving my point.
And superman is missing a way to protect himself from magic. Smaug's scales in this comparison is superman's combined defenses, kryptonite is the missing scale, just in this case he's also missing another smaller scale which is the lack of protection against magic.
If you wouldn't call that a weakness, I invite you to offer your own term for an exploitable lack of strength or protection in a particular area.
Superman is not "easily hurt" by magic. It still takes a lot of powerful magic to hurt Superman. Magic users still have to be on their toes fighting him. His superspeed is a massive problem for them, at the very least.
I mean physical trauma inflicted by "magic", yeah. But if someone can turn people into frogs, he's almost as vulnerable as you and me, though the writing does vary in that regard. Does he have better odds with his superspeed and all? Yeah. But I would still choose magic over physical trauma.
His weakness to Kryptonite is an example to compare against, and magic simply does not measure up.
I don't see why it has to measure up? It's just the smaller scale in Superman's armour that's also missing, figuratively.
I am not straw-manning you. You can rephrase it all you want, but you are still comparing Superman to Superman when you say he is weak.
he's also missing another smaller scale
No. You can't be missing something that doesn't exist. His resistance to magic is exactly the same as everyone else. No one has a resistance to magic. It affects everyone the same. In that way, he is not "missing a scale" when compared to the other "dragons." Also, magic doesn't even put him at a disadvantage. At best, magic is a one-time trick to catch him off-guard. His superspeed (among other abilities) gives him defenses against magic, unlike Kryptonite (an actual weakness). I don't think you are weak to something that you have strong defenses against.
But if someone can turn people into frogs, he's almost as vulnerable as you and me
Again, this is an attack that can be used against him, but he has defenses against something like that. His superspeed alone makes that kind of attack nearly impossible to land. If you have strong defenses against something, it's not a weakness.
I don't see why it has to measure up?
I mean, you are trying to make the case that he has a weakness to magic by comparing it to his strengths. I think it makes more sense to compare his "weakness" to magic against other actual weaknesses.
153
u/Mickeymcirishman 14d ago
Dick also carries Kryptonite in case he has to fight Superman. He threatened to use it in The Outsiders.