Intangibility and Ghosts

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I agree 100% with Saikou and Matt here.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

@SD There is a difference between "defeating" and "killing". Even then, you're still affecting a soul in some way if you punch a soul in the face.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

In most series souls have no durability. It is in fact pretty notable when you have verses where souls can tank being punched / stabbed / cut, etc.

 

[SomebodyData]

Then I must ask you, how standard is it? Because from what I've seen, it doesn't tend to be that way.

 

[Ryukama]

I'll probably legit be in the minority here. However I know there are verses where ghosts are tangible and actively have to "turn on" intangibility. I don't think being able to punch a ghost while it's tangible should be treated as hax. Especially if said person goes through that ghost if they turn on intangibility.

 

[Niarobi_(Formerly_Hadou)]

It was discussed in another thread whether or not people who can take hits from people with soul mutilation/destruction should get a resistance. For example, all Kirby villains getting a resistance for being able to take hits from Kirby, who can destroy ghosts.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

@Ryu This happens rarely from what I know. We shouldn't treat it as standard, but obviously, ghosts that need to go intangible to be intangible won't need any special requirements to be hit normally.

 

[Ryukama]

@Saikou I never said to treat it as standard. Just to not treat particular cases like that as hax. Which you seem to agree with.

 

[Niarobi_(Formerly_Hadou)]

In some Zelda games, Poes are only intangible selectively, the game's information about them even acknowledging that you can't hit them half the time. In other Zelda games, however, this isn't acknowledged and evidence shows that this isn't the case.

 

[Kepekley23]

With Matt here.

 

[SomebodyData]

I still have to ask where this is the standard, if needed I can provide examples where this not (Heck, the fact that most ghost fighting characters don't one shot anyone alive via soul destruction alone makes me doubt this is the case.)

 

[Kepekley23]

Destroying a disembodied soul doesn't mean you can destroy a soul that is inside a body, so that's a non-sequitur

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think that we need to invoke the magical little phrase here:

Case-by-Case Analysis.

Seriously. People of all sides of the argument have proven that there's too much variation to assert one absolute standard across the site.

 

[JustSomeWeirdo]

It could be that they can only kill souls outside of their physical body

 

[Kepekley23]

Also, ghosts aren't intangible, but non-corporeal. That's a pretty big difference.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Matt I think the case by case analysis works

@Kep actually intangible (immaterial) specifically mentions ghosts, and I don't see how its a non-sequitur, at that case it would mean that they have a very limited soul destruction, at best.

 

[Kepekley23]

Photons are intangible, but not non-corporeal. I don't see how that's the case with ghosts.

 

[SomebodyData]

@Kep Abstract existence doesn't have ghosts in its description either. It seems to be limited to intangibility immaterial unless there was a mistake.

@Matt wait, before I forget, what about verses that doesn't conclude on what happens to the ghost afterward?

 

[Kepekley23]

Here

Non-Corporeal (or Incorporeal) beings are those who have no true physical form. Though they may have physical avatars or bodies, but their true essence exists non-physically, whether as a soul, as energy, or as an abstract concept

 

[Antvasima]

I am fine with case-by-case analysis.