[TORG] Philosophy of Polymorphism - Previous Message Sent Prematurely

[Jerry S Fisk]

At 12:16 AM 12/22/2008, Dominick wrote:
>It's worse than that. Both spells were "alteration/entity" and the
>witch is clearly a folk, not an entity. But the problem for me (as
>creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire for Compleat Magick) is that there
>are three fundamental questions that need to be answered. The first is
>one of whether there should be spells that are fundamentally the same
>built for more than one of the greater kindred (Polymorphism for
>entities, polymorphism for enchanted, polymorphism for folk,
>polymorphism for elementals) or if the fact that multiple greater
>kindred can use the same spells means that they should fundamentally
>be living forces spells so as to apply to them all. The second is one
>of definition - "turn me into a creature with which I have affinity"
>seems to be a bit more dodgy than "turn me into a cat" or "turn me
>into a wolf". Is the first definition simple enough to seem like one
>effect? If not, the Magic Axiom can allow for it, but not at Aysle's
>ratings.

In the TKSB on page 47 under the list of spells that TK would have 
similar with the other source books.  It states any Demon based 
version of these spells like "haste" with an AK of Folk would use 
Entity instead.  This is based on demon society and not really 
fitting into the normal world and such.

So could you modify a TK spell with an AK of Entity like "Pop" pg 52 
to folk so a human mage could cast it?  I think you can since they 
are both part of Living Forces.

Thanks in advance.  And have a happy holiday.