Non-Physical Interaction Types Additions (Staff Only)

[Elizhaa]

Here the current definition:

The power to interact with intangible or non-corporeal beings. Users can both see and interact with intangible, or non-corporeal, abstract, and nonexistent life-forms and entities, allowing them to make physical contact and possibly cause harm.

The current definition is too broad and I made the page initially because I thought only a few characters in fiction had it. Now, over 1,190 characters are Non-Physical Interaction Users with widely different feats where the current definition doesn't the feats justice. To remedy the situation, I have Types Proposal and here they are.

Types

• Type 1: Intangibility Interaction: The ability to interacts with intangible beings.
• Type 2: Non-Corporeal Interaction: The ability to interacts with Non-Corporeal beings.
• Type 3: Abstract Interaction: The ability to interacts with beings with Abstract Existence.
• Type 4: Nonexistence Interaction: The ability to interacts with beings with Nonexistent Physiology.

Honestly, while I would like help with revisions or additions, there no need for massive changes as it can be graduals if it too much for everyone. In this situation, I can handle most of the change

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Should add more. Abstract interaction would be good.

 

[Elizhaa]

Should add more. Abstract interaction would be good.

Fix it!

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Sounds good. If we have multiple types of non physicality, there should be multiple types of non physical interaction.

 

[Elizhaa]

I agree with your point, The real cal howard

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Another one might be Conceptual Interaction, too. I believe that does come up in some places.

Anyhow, gonna go to sleep, I wholeheartedly agree we need types.

 

[Wokistan]

I feel like we need a better way of differentiating intangibility and Non corporeality. To answer Bambu, that's just concept manip.

Otherwise, I like this idea.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

There are beings who are both non corporeal and intangible, for example, Gengar, who is both, a ghost and gas.

 

[Wokistan]

Well, stuff like fire is intangible. I wouldn't equalize a guy who can manipulate fire as immedately being able to hit ghosts. The distinction is ok, I just think it should be better defined.

 

[Andytrenom]

Wouldn't non-corporeality itself be too broad to be defined by a single type?

 

[Setsuna_tenma]

Wouldn't non-corporeality itself be too broad to be defined by a single type?

yes

 

[SomebodyData]

Same with intangibility.

Though we could just say for example:

(Type 1, X kind of intangibility or non-corporeality)

 

[Homu_Sweet_Homu]

There are Spatial and Elemental Intangibility. But not sure about nor-corporeal has more variation aside of Soul.

 

[Antvasima]

You should probably ask the other bureaucrats and administrators to comment here.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

I'm fine with NPI being split into types, but I agree with SD and Andy that there are different types of those different types, which could make it confusing.

 

[Antoniofer]

Although we could need types of NPI (that acronym do not sounds good btw), the OP sepate its by its effect rather than its cause; a suggestion would be: Intangibility Negation (although not quite NPI but it has the same effect, some OP characters tends to use it), Damage Energy, Spirit/Soul Interaction, Nothingness Interaction and Meta Interaction.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Does the acronym NPI mean something else or...?

 

[Elizhaa]

Does the acronym NPI mean something else or...?

No, just Non-Physical Interaction

 

[Antoniofer]

Just in spanish, it represent a bad word, although is not used to insult. You can ignore that, it just remind me that common phrase.

 

[Dark649]

This is fine.

 

[A6colute]

What difference in intangibility mechanics in type 1 and type 2 beings?

 

[Elizhaa]

A6colute,

Elemental Intangibility: required activation to intangible.

Immaterial: It is a state of being. A character is made of an intangible substance like energy or an otherworldly substance like a ghost. Frankly, speaking, this Type always felt like being Non-Corporeal.

 

[A6colute]

Well, passive or active type of ability doesn't change the nature of intangibility. There are a lot of examples when living creatures use a ghost form for traveling through material objects.

So, I don't think that we need two types for that.

 

[Elizhaa]

Well, passive or active type of ability doesn't change the nature of intangibility. There are a lot of examples when living creatures use a ghost form for traveling through material objects.
So, I don't think that we need two types for that.

Nevermind, it is Intangibility. Based on Non-Corporeal's definition the difference is:

• Being non-corporeal is very different than Intangibility, as an intangible being's body is their true body, it just can't be affected by conventional physical forces. A non-corporeal being does not usually have any kind of concrete, defined form, and can appear in many different forms if they wish, though the destruction of these bodies is of little relevance to the entity behind them.

 

[Kaltias]

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, having different types is good for organization purposes.

On the other one, I think that "interacting with stuff that can't be touched normally" encompasses way too much stuff and should be left as something explained on the profiles

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It should be both.

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah, there's several types of intangibility, for example I can write: elemental intangibility (to not write all the elements nor types of energy), aether/nether (although this can be mixed with spiritual), spiritual, nothingness and transcendence. Mmm, there weren't that much types as I initially though.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think trying to classify every type of intangibility / non-corporeal existence would be far too complicated and ultimately pointless as it varies from verse to verse. Conversely, trying to classify every way of interacting with each of those non-corporeal types would be an even grater exercise in futility.

 

[Elizhaa]

I agree with Matthew Schroeder 's point.

 

[Elizhaa]

I think it would be better to have Types anyway because in debate or in CRT; the feats can have explanations that hopefully gets added to profiles.

 

[Promestein]

I agree with Matt. Id on't think this is necessary, we can just explain it on the page.

 

[Ryukama]

I think we should cite examples of these things without confining them into specific types.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

I agree, i don't think this is necessary, there are way too many types to try to classify, it should just be explained on the pages.

 

[Elizhaa]

Quick: I am somewhat confused. The disagreements are about the Types of Non-Corporeal and Intangibility page but about the Types proposal for Non-Physical Interaction, right?

 

[Elizhaa]

I do think there is enough for the OP Type additions.

 

[Antoniofer]

The last one, rather than just create pre-determinated types is better to just explain how the NPI works, it saves us works, and is better debating wise.

 

[Antvasima]

I think we should cite examples of these things without confining them into specific types.

This seems like a good idea.

 

[Lightbuster30]

Would certain types allow crossovers with each other? Like abstract and NE?

 

[Elizhaa]

Would certain types allow crossovers with each other? Like abstract and NE?

Yes, @Lightbuster30, it is the point. This point is exactly like for Immortality Types where if they have the requirements, then characters gains the Types.

 

[Elizhaa]

I though the Type additions is better than the alternative where currently most profile do not list the Non-Physical Interaction explanation or in some case there is just limited Non-Physical Interaction just as explainations.