Intangibility and Ghosts

[SomebodyData]

It seems that defeating/killing a ghost = soul destruction in the wiki (or at least it seems to be commonly accepted), but from what I understood, its a bit more complex than that.

Defeating a spirit: Being able to harm Intangible (Immaterial) beings but said spirit can go to its verse' form of an afterlife or something like that.

Destroying the spirit in its entirety: Soul Destruction (No more afterlife shenanigans, just complete destruction)

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Seems reasonable.

 

[PaChi2]

Every Quincy here should get this, huh

 

[Kaltias]

I mean, if the ghost is dead for good, it should be soul manipulation, because it means that you can kill someone's non-corporeal essence.

If it's still alive but manages to go away, idk.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Kal so perhaps it should just be "can harm Intangibles (Immaterial)" unless confirmed to be dead for good right?


Also should this be highlighted?

 

[Kaltias]

I guess? As I said, i'm not sure

 

[PaChi2]

I dont think this is important enough to be highlighted.

 

[Kaltias]

Too late ovo (you can remove it if you want)

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Well it got highlighted anyway

I agree. Always seemed iffy to me that we rated killing ghosts as being able to ignore dura by attacking souls. Just saying they can attack immaterial enemies makes more sense.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I agree 100% with this.

 

[LordGinSama]

Agreed this seems pretty important.

 

[ArbitraryNumbers]

Yeah this is a pretty big distinction. If you damage them, then you can damage them. But if you kill them to the point of not being able to return, then that should be a form of soul manipulation, as like Kal said, their non-corporeal essence is no longer able to be there or return.

 

[JustSomeWeirdo]

Alright, seems fine to me, but I'm wondering what would a character get if there isn't anything saying the ghost was permakilled or not?

 

[SomebodyData]

I would just put "Can harm beings with Intangibility (Immaterial)" as a lowball.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

^

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I think harming the intagible/immaterial as @SomebodyData should be the minimum for doing this. Unless they can erase souls it should not qualify for soul destruction, especially if we don't expresly know if the souls were destroyed or just incapacitated

 

[TheJ-ManRequiem]

Maybe we need or should add this on stand profiles.

Rohan and Kira able ta kill ghosts. (Kira anyway).

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Maybe we need or should add this on stand profiles.

Rohan and Kira able ta kill ghosts. (Kira anyway).

but they are actual able to erase them tho, like didn't Kira erase Shegichi's soul? not sure about Rohan tho

 

[TheJ-ManRequiem]

Boy ya litterally just spoiled my next thread.

Man Rohan attacked reimi and Kira killed picture boy.

Specifically.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Boy ya litterally just spoiled my next thread.
Man Rohan attacked reimi and Kira killed picture boy.

Specifically.

lol I get that precog

Oh yeah, forgot Rohan did that. also didn't Rohan interact with Ghosts in the spin off, I read those but I should probably re read them for feats. Only thing I remember VS wise would be that Heavens Door can't cure sicknesses

I should try and make a profile on those weird bug things or those ******* mullusks just cuz I can lol

 

[Magi_Hussie]

Maybe we need or should add this on stand profiles.

Rohan and Kira able ta kill ghosts. (Kira anyway).

but they are actual able to erase them tho, like didn't Kira erase Shegichi's soul? not sure about Rohan tho

If they can erase their souls as well, then it's also Soul Erasure.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

This is fine but I don't get the logic of "Killing a spirit will send it to the afterlife."

I mean, isn't the whole thing that when your body dies your soul goes to the afterlife, but if you kill the soul there's nothing left?

 

[SomebodyData]

Fiction goes by the "kill it til its dead" logic I guess @Matt

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

My problem is assuming that people who can kill ghosts can somehow kill a normal person's soul and ignore their durability or whatever if nothing like that has been shown.

 

[Kepekley23]

I agree with Matt.

That's the case with SPN, DBZ, and even Naruto implies it.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

A ghost is, by definition, a soul.

If you can kill a ghost you can kill a soul.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Not always

There's fiction out there where ghosts are just psychic echoes and what nots. They aren't always the person's soul.

Isn't this sort of thing the reason we don't list Bleach characters as being able to ignore dura by attacking the soul, despite practically everyone of note being a soul?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

In Bleach souls specificially work in a different way then in stuff like Supernatural which follows a Judeo-Christian logic to its cosmology. That's why.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Can you explain that more to me? On my wall, not here so we don't derail.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Monarch

To cut a long story short, souls are not exactly incorporeal in the way they are in most other works. They are literally made of their own type of matter and energy. And the "matter" from which souls are made of can literally be converted into the matter that mortals are made of.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

They are still spiritual though. I mean, even Masadaverse goes on about spiritual "matter" and "density".

Bleach's souls might be physical, but they are still souls aren't they? And aren't a bunch of ghosts (not hollows or shinigami) actually intangible?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

To an extent but it is not the same thing as in most fiction. You yourself was arguing against attributing Durability Bypassing due to souls.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

True.

But like, they aren't even listed as being able to hit and exorcise souls and send them to Hell / soul society are they? I just think they should have soul manipulation listed, even if not for dura ignoring purposes.

 

[TISSG7Redgrave]

seems legit to me

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I was under the impression that Shinigami profiles already had the ability to exorcise souls and whatnot listed?

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Seems like I'm in the minority here, but I find it silly to assume that people harming and killing ghosts don't kill them fully unless proven otherwise. I think it's pretty standard in fiction that if a ghost is killed, they won't go to the afterlife and are completely dead.

Of course, it depends, but I wouldn't like this becoming our standard.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Seems like I'm in the minority here, but I find it silly to assume that people harming and killing ghosts don't kill them fully unless proven otherwise. I think it's pretty standard in fiction that if a ghost is killed, they won't go to the afterlife and are completely dead.
Of course, it depends, but I wouldn't like this becoming our standard.

I agree with you. If a ghost is killed its gone, unless proven otherwise. Kep also agrees.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Literally the only difference between killing a soul within a body and killing a ghost is that the ghost is a wandering soul. If its killed its gone. Unless there is something like an After-Afterlife in the verse.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Matt So we automatically assume soul destruction is what you're suggesting?

@Saik Actually, I'm pretty sure that the contrary is true, that defeating a ghost doesn't destroy the soul completely is more often in fiction.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@SD

Unless the mechanics of the verse are shown to work differently than the standard fair, I will assume that if a soul is killed it is gone for good.

And we're not saying that every instance of fighting a spirit = Soul Destruction, we are saying that if a soul is destroyed its gone.