[X] My Assistant

[Demonseed Elite]

Physical objects on the astral are hazy, colorless and indistinct. For bland, emotionless objects, their astral shadows can even have a tendency to blur together into the background. The more emotional, spiritual, or magical resonance an object possesses, the more distinct it is in the astral.

So, when you talk about the Hollywood sign, I'd say that's definitely clear in the astral; the Hollywood sign is an internationally-recognized monument that resonates with people to signify glamor and fame, among other things. What about an equally huge Ares logo on the side of an Ares arms factory? Probably not readable. It just doesn't carry much emotional, spiritual, or magical significance.

Likewise, reading your electricity bill likely isn't possible on the astral. Reading a love letter would be. Reading a letter written with an alchemic ink also would be. Reading a passage of religious scripture would also be possible. Reading a newspaper, no.

[Edward]

I once designed traffic lights for ghouls, being blind but possessing astral site they would need astraly active traffic lights. I was going to use different strains of FAB 2 that appear different enough to be traffic lights.


Edward

[nezumi]

In my game:

[eidolon]

[This post is outside the bounds of my curiosity, and delving into difference of interpretation. Therefore, consider it tangential, and not a part of, my earlier question.]

The Hollywood sign is not print or text. It is a three dimensional, physical object. Therefore, you can see it in it's full state, which means you could "read" it. However, if you'll think about how we "read" it normally, it's more iconic that textual.

Hedges are a physical object. You would be able to see and "read it". I highly doubt you'll find watcher spirits that look like Alphabits, but feel free to try. ;)

You see physical objects on the astral, just the same as you would see physical objects on the physical. You see their astral overlay if they have one, but otherwise you see a physical object. I highly suggest anyone at all curious about this read the page I referenced earlier. Long story short, your "normal" senses of sight and hearing operate just fine on the astral plane, rendering questions like "Can you see the Hollywood sign" moot. "Regular" taste and smell don't function, however certain things encountered on the astral plan might be interpreted as tastes or smells; bitter taste in the mouth when you scan an angry letter as an example (mine, not from the book).

That is, of course, unless you're deliberately ignoring it in favor of your own interpretation. Which is fine, but seemingly silly, since by debating it here you indicate that you don't have an interpretation, which makes it seem that falling on what has come before is preferable to re-inventing the wheel. This has been an "if the shoe fits" statement. If you have an interpretation, the statement obviously doesn't apply to you.

It's pretty explicit and clear. You cannot read printed text (printed, written, etc, two dimensional text that exists as a differentiation made by darkening or lightening the same physical plane/surface by normal methods).

If you decide that you don't like the rule/fluff/whatever you want to call it, and therefore rule it differently, that's fine. But don't try to fuzz out some mumbo-jumbo semantic way of twisting the passage's language so as to support a position clearly and directly contrary to itself.

[FanGirl]

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Here's what I believe about sensing emotional content from the astral plane:

Objects do not have emotional content. There can only be emotional imprints. People leave that behind. That's where background count comes from. If someone penned a love letter, his aura would give off emotion, which would imprint onto the paper. It would also imprint onto his pen, and his chair for that matter, though I would say that it's strongest on the paper, because he's directing his emotion towards it as he writes. In any case this imprint is a result of his feelings, not what the words say.

Here's a part that is a little more arguable. I believe this is proximity based. The emotion expressed doesn't go very far. this means that the Hollywood sign isn't able to be imprinted, except by those who climb up there. For another (poor) example, a cult of moon worshippers will not imprint the moon with their adoration, but the place where they gather will have a high background count. However, it's all relative. A cross above an altar is reasonably close enough to pick up an imprint from a congregation if its projected worshipping is strong enough.

[knasser]

[ShadowDragon8685]

[Demonseed Elite]

[Witness]

I share this view, with some personal amendments.

IMO astral perception shouldn't be anything like sight or hearing or any of the other mundane senses. OK, maybe sometimes it can seem like that. Sure, why not? The bit of astral that you describe doesn't need to be anything like the bit of astral I describe, even if you and I are describing the same bit of astral space being 'observed' by two different individuals at the same time.

When somebody 'looks into astral' it's a prime opportunity for a GM to cut loose with the weird, the wonderful, and above all the abstract. If it's got strict rules like the 'real' world, then it... well... it starts to seem mundane. People start playing the numbers, and finding ways to power play. They start wanting to do things like: "I astrally perceive and work out all the cyberware that the deadly cybersam is carrying." "Well why not? I can see the outline of what's living and what's not, can't I?" No no no no. That's complete anathema to the way I want magic to be in my games. Magic is lawless, chaotic, capricious. Maybe on Tuesday you'll get a strong sense of what cyberware they're carrying, but on Wednesday you'll get an impression of a sawmill packed to bursting with buzzing blades and a tiny voice calling out 'help' from within.

Magic and astral perception should be scary, unpredictable, misunderstood, and at all times accompanied by the sound track to Donnie Darko. ;)

This post has been edited by Witness: Jun 11 2006, 12:34 AM

[coolgrafix]

[coolgrafix]