Intangibility (Again)

[Promestein]

Don't derail the topic. It's just a conceptual defense. moving on.

I'm fine with just listing examples of common intangibility on the page.

 

[Sera_EX]

I'm done for what Ever said too.

Whatever the case....

It must be done.

 

[ProspectX]

Yes, what promestein said.

 

[Heilergott]

Like I've said, If anyone needs help, I'll try my best

 

[Promestein]

It'll probably just be an edit for the Intangibility page handled by staff.

 

[Heilergott]

Would it not be necessary to add profiles to specify their specific Intang?

 

[ProspectX]

Yes explaining their "intangibility" nature is the priority here.

 

[Promestein]

Instead of revising every intangibility page in a project, we'll just leave people to elaborate on the pages they know over time.

 

[ProspectX]

That is good enough.

 

[The_Everlasting]

Currently I'm just wondering if there are any more kinds of intangibility that can get an example for the page.

 

[Promestein]

It'd probably be a good idea to explain the difference between Non-Corporeal and Intangibility on one or both pages.

 

[The_Everlasting]

It would also be wise to mention on the page that some characters can't interact with stuff while intangible, while others can.

Like, Malthael from Diablo can interact with things while intangible, but other characters (Can't think of any ATM) can't touch anything themselves.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Ever Servants from Fate

 

[ProspectX]

Maybe you meant for ghosts?, It's more like their true essence doesnt exist in the world where they appear to be.

Type 2 - "Intangibility via existing in a different dimension"

 

[ALRF]

IIRC Rogue from Fairy Tail can make himself intangible but can't interact with anything as long as he doesn't go back to his solid form.

 

[ProspectX]

Oh, okay. Then it's just his arrangement not being actually materalized, he is only showing a simple reflection of his body.

 

[Aeyu]

What about non-existence? Would that qualify for the meta-abstract kind of Intangibility?

That being said, I could support this.

 

[Crzer07]

Elemental intangibility isnt that logia intangibility

 

[ProspectX]

@Aeyu While existence is 1, non-existence is 0. That's just the attribute of existing in a void.

 

[Aeyu]

I'm aware of "how it would work". But a non-existent being might be able to phase through material and matter though it were nothing, or even walk through the essence of it, being superimposed on top of other things.

 

[ProspectX]

Normally, "non"-existence is inapplicable of interacting with existence. As shown with the neverwere. 239 bended the laws of existence to make that neverwere exist.

 

[Aeyu]

I'm not talking about hax. I'm talking about non-existent beings (Not necessarily void based, but anything that doesn't *exist* as we know it) literally interacting with matter and energy.

 

[ProspectX]

Not necessarily void based.

Void is a term in reference to non-existence/nothingness/0/.

It is a state of reality.

 

[Aeyu]

Implying that a being that doesn't *exist* in a way we can tell must be 0 or nothing. You're applying physical limitations to something which does not essentially have them.

 

[ProspectX]

Okay, you're referring to the relative aspect. It's really a abbreviation of this type below, but simply non-existent.

Type 2 - "Intangibility via existing in a different dimension"

Anyhow, the state of 0 isnt about physical limitations or no limitations. It's just litterally nothing, neither black, white, abstract color, just nothingness. If we tried to fill nothing with something, what is the result? Nothing at all. But it can still be affected by a opponent, if he is really powerful.

 

[Aeyu]

Type 2 maybe then should be retitled:

"Intangibility via existing in a different reality/dimension"

And as I said before, I know what you mean and whatnot. I'm more referring to a thing that isn't *existent*, but isn't necessarily *nothing*, either.

 

[Promestein]

We're not having types.

 

[Aeyu]

@Prom

Oh Maybe I should have read the whole thread instead of the first couple posts and the last couple, then. My bad. That being said, adding a note to the page might be best, as you said.

 

[ProspectX]

@Aeyu

Yes, the relative aspect. Aka type 2.

A non-existent being isnt "something" to a [1]-being. A existent being would not be "something" to a [0]-being. That is relative observation.

 

[Aeyu]

You're misinterpreting what I mean.

 

[ProspectX]

Sounds like what appears to be this.

Type 3 - "Intangibility via energetic existence" - refers to beings that exist in the form of intangible energy (for example, soul, quantum foam, magical form, or just particles that do not have clear links between them, and are able to pass through solid material). They can ignore almost any exposure, excluding special abilities that relate to them (a soul wouldn't be able to ignore soul manipulation for example.)

Regardless, both states need each other, unless the entity is truly metaphysical.

 

[Aeyu]

I'm not referring to intangible anything or anything that can be described. I'm referring to blatant *non-existent* characters, as in, are not able to be described by existential characteristics, but who are also not defined by a void, nothingness, etc.

 

[ProspectX]

Hm...you mean those beings who embody the concept of Everything? Existential descriptions are not enough at all to explain them..

High 1-B, and definitely 1-A contemplates that very well.

Anyhow, this would be non-corporeal. Sera said something in above regarding that.

Edit : I be temporarily not-responding.

 

[Antvasima]

I honestly feel we don't need types, but rather we can just list them like "The mechanics of the Intangibility can wildly vary from series to series, but some common variations are as follows". It outlines them without the necessity of a project and accounting for how there are multiple versions of Intangibility that aren't part of the given types.

I think that this notion makes the most sense.

If we strictly stick to listing some examples (Promestein's were the easiest to understand), and suggest that pages should give a brief explanation within a parenthesis, we would avoid a very inconvenient massive project, not limit ourselves when we do not have a full grasp of all potential types, and also avoid going through hundreds of unfamiliar character profiles while usually not knowing which type to assign to them.

 

[Aeyu]

I agree with Ant.

 

[SomebodyData]

Or we can just add types but not have a revision, just add them if you want to be specific.

 

[Antvasima]

The above text should have said "'''not''' knowing which type to assign them". Sorry about the confusion.

 

[OpManZ]

Type 5 Quantum Entanglement

 

[Dark_warrior_100]

I agree with this

 

[Sera_EX]

Or we can just add types but not have a revision, just add them if you want to be specific.

That also sounds good.

As long as the distinction is made then it can really help out certain vs matches. "Character A (physical being) can defeat Character B (a ghost) because Character A can affect intangibles" won't be as much of a controversy anymore.