Regarding Non-Physical Interaction and Intangibility/Incorporeality

[WeeklyBattles]

So this issue was brought up in this thread, and I figured I'd make this thread to clear it up. We have a character who can become elementally intangible (Type 1 Intangibility) fighting a character with Non-Physical Interaction towards immaterial intangibility [shadows, energy, and spirits] (Type 2 Intangibility). The argument is that, since the character with Non-Physical Interaction can interact with things that are 'more intangible' than elemental intangibility, that they should be able to interact with elemental intangibility by default even without any actual showings of it.

So the question posed: Does having Non-Physical Interaction, but only feats that would qualify for only one type of Intangibility, grant Non-Physical Interaction towards other types of intangibility as a default? Or do you need showings of interacting with those types of Intangibility for that argument to be made?

 

[Damage3245]

I think you would need showing of interacting against those other types of intangibility as well. Otherwise it would be a No-Limit's Fallacy on the character's Non-Physical Interaction.

 

[Phoenks]

I think you would need showing of interacting against those other types of intangibility as well. Otherwise it would be a No-Limit's Fallacy on the character's Non-Physical Interaction.

Could you explain why it would be a no limits fallacy when elemental intangibility can already be interacted with by physical abilities (air manipulation, water manipulation, etc) and entities (you are able to grasp air, punch water, and fan fires) in the first place?

Meanwhile, attempting to interact with something that totally lacks physicality is inherently impossible. If a person is capable of interacting with things that entirely lack physical presence, why would that not also translate into also being able to interact with something that simply has a more diluted physical presence? Interacting with the totally immaterial is something that by all means should be considered an outright superior form of interaction to interacting with elements.


EDIT: And this is not to say that immaterial interaction encompasses all other types. I am simply saying that if you have someone who has shown interaction with things that are completely immaterial (Ex. shadows, darkness, spirits, abstracts), they should be capable of interacting with things of diluted physical nature (gas, liquid), as the latter still has physical presence while the former lacks that entirely.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I think you would need showing of interacting against those other types of intangibility as well. Otherwise it would be a No-Limit's Fallacy on the character's Non-Physical Interaction.

I couldve sworn this was the reasoning used before too

Are there specific staff i should ping about this?

 

[Greatsage13th]

I think you would need showing of interacting against those other types of intangibility as well. Otherwise it would be a No-Limit's Fallacy on the character's Non-Physical Interaction.

Thing is, elemental intangibility is not as potent as being intangible in something as empty as shadow. So, if one can touch something as intangible as shadows, then they should be able to interact with lesser levels of intangibility.

 

[Damage3245]

Thing is, elemental intangibility is not as potent as being intangible in something as empty as shadow. So, if one can touch something as intangible as shadows, then they should be able to interact with lesser levels of intangibility.

That kind of heirarchy seems like it should be specific from verse to verse, not a universal cross-fiction law.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Thing is, elemental intangibility is not as potent as being intangible in something as empty as shadow. So, if one can touch something as intangible as shadows, then they should be able to interact with lesser levels of intangibility.

Technically that isn't just a less potent intangibility but a completely different type of intangibility. So I'm not sure this argument applies

 

[Greatsage13th]

That kind of heirarchy seems like it should be specific from verse to verse, not a universal cross-fiction law.

Fair point. But unless their elemental intangibility involves something spiritual, conceptual or something other than that. Then, the general hierarchy can still be applied in this scenario.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Technically that isn't just a less potent intangibility but a completely different type of intangibility. So I'm not sure this argument applies

Do elaborate.

 

[Phoenks]

That kind of heirarchy seems like it should be specific from verse to verse, not a universal cross-fiction law.

Reply to my statement above? The "universal law" you mention is just logic. If someone can interact with a thing that is completely immaterial why would they not be able to interact with a merely diluted form of physicality? One of those is objectively more intangible.

Someone who can interact with shadow and darkness shouldn't have an issue interacting with wind.

Someone who can interact with space itself shouldn't have an issue interacting with any form of physical matter. I mean, space is literally the canvas that holds matter within it anyway.

Elemental intangibility does not even meet the textbook definition of intangibility. As things like fire and air still have a physical presence. Even regular people can interact with that stuff. It's just more difficult to harm them

 

[Damage3245]

Reply to my statement above? The "universal law" you mention is just logic. If someone can interact with a thing that is completely immaterial why would they not be able to interact with a merely diluted form of physicality? One of those is objectively more intangible.

Someone who can interact with shadow and darkness shouldn't have an issue interacting with wind.

Someone who can interact with space itself shouldn't have an issue interacting with any form of physical matter. I mean, space is literally the canvas that holds matter within it anyway.

Elemental intangibility does not even meet the textbook definition of intangibility. As things like fire and air still have a physical presence. Even regular people can interact with that stuff. It's just more difficult to harm them

There is no universal stance where something like shadows are over fire in terms of intangibility. Intangibility is not a spectrum where if you become a little bit intangible than you break down into elemental stats, and if you become a little more intangible then you're made of shadows, and then if you're even more intangible then you're made of souls or empty space.

Your position would require a cross-fiction rule to be established where if you can interact with a "higher" form of intangibility then you're guaranteed to be able to interact with a "lower" form of intangibility. No such rule exists, and it shouldn't exist. In one piece of fiction a character could punch a living shadow in the face; it doesn't mean they'd be able to do anything to someone whose physical form is made out of water, or photons, etc. There is no relationship between them other than the label of "intangibility"; so interacting with one does not logically guarantee being able to interact with another.

 

[Phoenks]

There is no universal stance where something like shadows are over fire in terms of intangibility. Intangibility is not a spectrum where if you become a little bit intangible than you break down into elemental stats, and if you become a little more intangible then you're made of shadows, and then if you're even more intangible then you're made of souls or empty space.

There is though.

Fire is made up of physical matter. Shadows aren't. Full stop. One of those things is objectively more immaterial and thus objectively more intangible than the other.

It's only when you start comparing immaterial things to other immaterial things that it becomes unquantifiable. I've already established that I'm not referring to those comparisons.

But you can absolutely say that shadow > fire in terms of intangibility for the sole fact that fire is a gas/plasma state of matter that is still made up of physical stuff. While shadow/darkness is an immaterial phenomena.

Not to mention this is objectively measurable in real life. We can interact with fire. We can't interact with shadows.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Do elaborate.

Something like air is intangible because while it has a physical form, the state of matter it's in makes it difficult to affect. Technically it is physically tangible, you can physically touch it but if you tried catching or punching it with your hands it would automatically slip out due to its state.

Something like a soul in the other hand can be in a solid state of matter but be intangible due to its abstract nature. Meaning you can't interact with it due to its lack of a physical form altogether, not due to its state of matter. But if you had the ability to interact with souls, you would have no issues interacting with it. With souls you can't interact with them because they're untouchable, not because they'd slip out of your hands.

Take spiritual fire for example. It's not that it has layered intangibility, but that it has 2 different types of intangibility. Even if you can interact with souls, if you tried grabbing spiritual fire it'd slip out of your hand as if you couldn't.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

This thread is really extra. The whole argument this thread spawned from was that Mori would be able to redirect Ruby while she's in Petal Burst because she's fluidly intangible and Mori has feats of redirecting fluid material like water, air, and fire. We have SHOWN you these feats.

Nobody is arguing that Mori can touch Ruby while she's in Petal Burst. We're arguing that she doesn't literally phase out of existence and has material mass so she can be redirected by an ability that literally does that.

This thread is such a nothingburger.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Nobody is arguing that Mori can touch Ruby while she's in Petal Burst. We're arguing that she doesn't literally phase out of existence and has material mass so she can be redirected by an ability that literally does that.

She...doesnt though

I would appreciate it if you didnt derail this thread.

 

[Deonment]

There is though.

Fire is made up of physical matter. Shadows aren't. Full stop. One of those things is objectively more immaterial and thus objectively more intangible than the other.

It's only when you start comparing immaterial things to other immaterial things that it becomes unquantifiable. I've already established that I'm not referring to those comparisons.

But you can absolutely say that shadow > fire in terms of intangibility for the sole fact that fire is a gas/plasma state of matter that is still made up of physical stuff. While shadow/darkness is an immaterial phenomena.

Not to mention this is objectively measurable in real life. We can interact with fire. We can't interact with shadows.

That isn't the issue here though; the issue isn't with which one is more physical than the other, the issue is that interacting with shadows vs interacting with fire is simply just not the same "thing" being measured across those two feats. Interacting with a shadow or a ghost is a feat of interacting with something that lacks physical composition, meanwhile, interacting with fire is more of "forcing" the fire to take on a solid state so that you can meaningfully interact with it, because you can't punch a fluid, you just deform it (also that isn't what fire is but that's more sementics than anything)

Either way, as I said before, the thing being measured in the feats is simply just different; they are two separate axes, and even if you can interact with one, you need a feat to interact with the other because what you mechanically need to do is different, this applies to every type of intang, incorp, NEP, AE, TD and whatnot (though less so for NEP and AE, because they have nonexistent or no body at all like how incorp characters do, so interacting with the "body" of them (not the concept or nonexistent soul or what have you, though those would also work), would work for incorp)

Now, whether or not this is actually relevant for the linked thread is a separate matter, altogether, but I'm pretty sure this is just part of our standards anyway, so

 

[WeeklyBattles]

but I'm pretty sure this is just part of our standards anyway, so

Thats the thing, its not, its the whole reason why i made this thread to begin with. I thought it was but apparently its not actually listed as a standard anywhere

 

[AlipheeseXIV]

Yeah I agree with David, Damage & Deonment. Interacting with a soul or shadow =/= being able to ignore the properties of how damaging various elements work, I guess the OP might've maybe confused it by using the word "interact" instead of "damage" since you don't need NPI to interact with various elements. What you need is the ability to meaningfully affect them in spite of how physical laws with said elements work, as Deonment said you CAN punch water but all you're doing is deforming the fluid you aren't actually damaging the water with your attack. I'd assume that falls closer into manip of either that specific element or in the most case some form of physics manip maybe, but that's mostly my take on it.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Feels like this may need to be a note on one of the pages if we have a set standard for it

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Case by case, but Elemental Intangibility is more limited compared to immaterial or spatial. Though they're also different. Elemental intangibility has a lot of variations and are still made of matter, but lacks physical matter and getting punched or struck with a sword will simply splash parts of them rather than feel like true direct hits unless bigger AoE was able to do something entirely. I do not think it is a standard assumption that Non-Physical interaction (In the form of being able to effect ghosts/spirits) grants them AoE or elemental attacks that would have elemental effectiveness against elemental beings.

 

[KLOL506]

This thread is really extra. The whole argument this thread spawned from was that Mori would be able to redirect Ruby while she's in Petal Burst because she's fluidly intangible and Mori has feats of redirecting fluid material like water, air, and fire. We have SHOWN you these feats.

Nobody is arguing that Mori can touch Ruby while she's in Petal Burst. We're arguing that she doesn't literally phase out of existence and has material mass so she can be redirected by an ability that literally does that.

This thread is such a nothingburger.

Dawg really came back from the dead to throw pot shots at Weekly. I respect that.

But yeah, elemental intangibility =/= Immaterial interaction-based intangibility... buuuuuuut that doesn't even seem to be the crux of the argument so uh...

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0 @Qawsedf234

 

[Planck69]

I thought it was obvious that elemental intangibility wasn't the same as wholesale being unable to be interacted with by material forces. Ovens is right, nothing burger of a thread.

 

[Eseseso]

This thread is really extra. The whole argument this thread spawned from was that Mori would be able to redirect Ruby while she's in Petal Burst because she's fluidly intangible and Mori has feats of redirecting fluid material like water, air, and fire. We have SHOWN you these feats.

Nobody is arguing that Mori can touch Ruby while she's in Petal Burst. We're arguing that she doesn't literally phase out of existence and has material mass so she can be redirected by an ability that literally does that.

This thread is such a nothingburger.

When the world needed him most, he returned

 

[Arceus0x]

Elemental intangibility is basically a different ability than immaterial intangibility. One is intangibile because of it's molecular structure, the other - because of it's supernatural or non-physical nature. It's in the same vein as you being able to manipulate souls wouldn't mean that you can bend someone's muscles at will.

Shrimple as that.

 

[Dust_Collector]

I'd imagine being able to hit ghosts or something wouldn't automatically mean you'd be able to physically grab air or something. Ghosts typically ain't depicted as being intangible via dispersing when someone tries to touch them, that person tends to just phases through them. I don't think being able to hit something like that would mean you can now stop tiny particles from dispersing when you wave your hand through smoke.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Dawg really came back from the dead to throw pot shots at Weekly. I respect that.

But yeah, elemental intangibility =/= Immaterial interaction-based intangibility... buuuuuuut that doesn't even seem to be the crux of the argument so uh...

That is the crux of the argument yes, I said the same thing and was told i was wrong so i made this thread to clarify

 

[WeeklyBattles]

So can this be added to the NPI/Intangibility pages or do we need more staff agreement?

 

[KLOL506]

I don't see the point. From what Ovens mentions the fight doesn't even go to the immaterial realm to begin with, so mentioning it is completely moot.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I don't see the point. From what Ovens mentions the fight doesn't even go to the immaterial realm to begin with, so mentioning it is completely moot.

Ovens is wrong. Full stop. The character in question does go into the immaterial realm.

If the standard we have were on the NPI page to begin with, this thread wouldnt have had to be made.

 

[KLOL506]

Then this thread is pointless. Make another CRT to prove Ruby can interact with the immaterial if it's not accepted already.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Then this thread is pointless. Make another CRT to prove Ruby can interact with the immaterial if it's not accepted already.

...

I dont mean to be rude but did you read the thread at all...? Or even the OP?

This thread isnt about Ruby, hell the original discussion wasnt even about Ruby having NPI, it was in regards to whether another character with only Immaterial NPI feats would be able to interact with Ruby's elemental intangibility.

This thread is about whether or not having NPI towards one type of intangibility means you get other types of NPI by default

 

[KLOL506]

I read the thread, and honestly what you made the thread for is completely irrelevant. It's the intent that matters. And on that note, I am inclined to agree with Planck and Ovens.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I read the thread, and honestly what you made the thread for is completely irrelevant. It's the intent that matters. And on that note, I am inclined to agree with Planck and Ovens.

Planck and Ovens were not talking about the issue in the OP. What they said is completely irrelevant to the thread.

OP: Does NPI towards one type of intangibility means you get other types of NPI by default?

Ovens: "Ruby isnt intangible so this thread is irrelevant."

Do you see the issue with your line of argument here?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Antvasima Pinging you on this just in case

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I'd prefer for a thread that is aiming to adjust/clarify a wiki-wide standard to not be derailed or tainted by an argument that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Planck and Ovens were not talking about the issue in the OP. What they said is completely irrelevant to the thread.

OP: Does NPI towards one type of intangibility means you get other types of NPI by default?

Ovens: "Ruby isnt intangible so this thread is irrelevant."

Do you see the issue with your line of argument here?

Don't be discourteous.

You literally linked the thread this whole conversation started from in the OP. Your intentions with this thread are very clear. Even if we were to engage with its contents and agree, it would mean absolutely nothing cause it just doesn't apply to Mori vs Ruby and Weiss. The argument was that Mori could displace Ruby because his kicks literally create air vortexes and the type of intangibility that Ruby is, still makes her physical to the touch. If I put Ruby into a vacuum chamber and she uses Petal Burst, she's not going to be able to phase through the glass cause that's not the type of intangibility she has.

That's why I said this thread is a nothingburger. Because nobody is disagreeing with the OP. You're just deliberately misinterpreting the argument so you can create this side tangent to make your point look stronger on the surface.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Don't be discourteous.

You literally linked the thread this whole conversation started from in the OP. Your intentions with this thread are very clear. Even if we were to engage with its contents and agree, it would mean absolutely nothing cause it just doesn't apply to Mori vs Ruby and Weiss. The argument was that Mori could displace Ruby because his kicks literally create air vortexes and the type of intangibility that Ruby is, still makes her physical to the touch. If I put Ruby into a vacuum chamber and she uses Petal Burst, she's not going to be able to phase through the glass cause that's not the type of intangibility she has.

That's why I said this thread is a nothingburger. Because nobody is disagreeing with the OP. You're just deliberately misinterpreting the argument so you can create this side tangent to make your point look stronger on the surface.

Then just engage with the contents as was intended

I would appreciate it if you didnt try to derail this thread Ovens. I get that you dont like me but thats no excuse to act like this.

 

[Nierre]

Yeah Damage and Weekly makes sense to me

 

[MannyQ361]

Are shadows both elemental and immaterial? Was wondering since Rogue was listed as a user of elemental intangibility?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Are shadows both elemental and immaterial? Was wondering since Rogue was listed as a user of elemental intangibility?

NGL, I feel like there should be a category in between elemental and immaterial. Lumping all elements into one form of intangibility feels too broad considering there are some elements that are blatantly more tangible (water, magma, sand, etc.) than others (air, fire, light, shadow, etc.)