Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: valeuj@*****.navy.mil (Valeu, John W. EM3(AS40 R-3))
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:35:07 +1000
Ok folks, time to stir the pot a little.

I'm looking (hastely I might add) through the SR3 book and seeing nothing on
limitations on magic. I'm not talking starting limits, I'm talking legal
limits. I remember reading how in game terms, all spells, unless
registered, over a Focus of 4 are illegel (except for Mind Probe which is
ALWAYS illegel).

Who does one register with and what would be the process?
Any thoughts?
Message no. 2
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:52:56 +0200
According to Valeu, John W. EM3(AS40 R-3), on 16-8-05 14:35 the word on
the street was...

> I'm looking (hastely I might add) through the SR3 book and seeing nothing on
> limitations on magic. I'm not talking starting limits, I'm talking legal
> limits. I remember reading how in game terms, all spells, unless
> registered, over a Focus of 4 are illegel (except for Mind Probe which is
> ALWAYS illegel).

IIRC it's Force 3, but otherwise you're right.

> Who does one register with and what would be the process?
> Any thoughts?

With the government, I suppose; I'd imagine the process would be much
like getting a firearms permit. Wait, let's put that in terms Americans
will understand ... I'd imagine the process would be much like getting a
... a ... whatever it is you need to get permits for in the US ;)

What I mean is: you'll probably have to go to some or another desk, fill
out forms, wait a while, and finally either get your permit, or have it
be denied (at which point you're probably able to file an appeal against
the decision).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: dougherty.jeffrey@*****.com (Jeffrey Dougherty)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:09:11 -0500
On 8/16/05, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Valeu, John W. EM3(AS40 R-3), on 16-8-05 14:35 the word on
> the street was...
> > Who does one register with and what would be the process?
> > Any thoughts?
>
> With the government, I suppose; I'd imagine the process would be much
> like getting a firearms permit. Wait, let's put that in terms Americans
> will understand ... I'd imagine the process would be much like getting a
> ... a ... whatever it is you need to get permits for in the US ;)

Buying a handgun, at least in most of the East Coast states. Or
getting a concealed-carry license.

> What I mean is: you'll probably have to go to some or another desk, fill
> out forms, wait a while, and finally either get your permit, or have it
> be denied (at which point you're probably able to file an appeal against
> the decision).

Borrowing from the concealed-carry analogy above, some
states/countries might require the applicant to complete some sort of
safety course, take a proficiency test, or otherwise demonstrate that
they understand how to use the spell they're applying to have licensed
safely.

-JTD

> --
> Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> de limme
> -> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
> -> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
>
> GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
> M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
> Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
>
Message no. 4
From: Steve.Garrard@********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:41:55 +0200
Jeffrey Dougherty wrote:
> On 8/16/05, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> > According to Valeu, John W. EM3(AS40 R-3), on 16-8-05 14:35
> the word
> > on the street was...
> > > Who does one register with and what would be the process?
> > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > With the government, I suppose; I'd imagine the process
> would be much
> > like getting a firearms permit. Wait, let's put that in terms
> > Americans will understand ... I'd imagine the process would
> be much like getting a
> > ... a ... whatever it is you need to get permits for in the US ;)
>
> Buying a handgun, at least in most of the East Coast states.
> Or getting a concealed-carry license.

Interestingly, in the US, you must have a license to carry a concealed
firearm, otherwise it must be plainly visible AFAIK. In South Africa the law
states (or used to anyway) that all firearms must be concealed unless you
have a license to carry a visible firearm (usually only law enforcement and
the like). I always found that bizarre when I moved here from NA.

Just 2 very OT cents :)


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon



________________________________________________________________________
This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar
malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan.

DISCLAIMER

This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential
and may contain privileged or copyright information. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Microgen.

If you are not the named or intended recipient of this email you
must not read, use or disseminate the information contained within
it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received
this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete this email from your system.

It is your responsibility to protect your system from viruses and
any other harmful code or device, we try to eliminate them from
emails and attachments, but accept no liability for any which remain.
We may monitor or access any or all emails sent to us.

In the event of technical difficulty with this email, please contact
the sender or it.support@********.co.uk

Microgen Information Management Solutions
http://www.microgen.co.uk
Message no. 5
From: allen.versfeld@*****.com (Allen Versfeld)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:56:12 +0200
On 8/16/05, Steve Garrard <Steve.Garrard@********.co.za> wrote:
> Jeffrey Dougherty wrote:
> > Buying a handgun, at least in most of the East Coast states.
> > Or getting a concealed-carry license.
>
> Interestingly, in the US, you must have a license to carry a concealed
> firearm, otherwise it must be plainly visible AFAIK. In South Africa the law
> states (or used to anyway) that all firearms must be concealed unless you
> have a license to carry a visible firearm (usually only law enforcement and
> the like). I always found that bizarre when I moved here from NA.
>

This has puzzled me for a very long time as well. Here is my theory:

Two different rationales.

US thinking is that hiding the gun misses the whole point in having it
in the first place - you're gonna get attacked if people don't know
that you're armed. And anyway, only sneaky criminals with something
to hide would conceal a gun.

SA thinking says that guns should be kept out of public sight, to
prevent them from being stolen. And anyway, only thuggish criminals
and macho arseholes flash them around to try intimidate people.
Message no. 6
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:52:46 -0400
On 8/16/05, Valeu, John W. EM3(AS40 R-3) <valeuj@*****.navy.mil> wrote:
>
> I'm looking (hastely I might add) through the SR3 book and seeing nothing on
> limitations on magic. I'm not talking starting limits, I'm talking legal
> limits. I remember reading how in game terms, all spells, unless
> registered, over a Focus of 4 are illegel (except for Mind Probe which is
> ALWAYS illegel).
>
> Who does one register with and what would be the process?
> Any thoughts?

That's a nifty question. My off-the-cuff take on it would be that
there is no process for individuals. Casting of high-Force spells is
usually illegal unless you're a member of law enforcement, a megacorp
(for whom laws don't apply anyway), academic faculty (who'd be
monitored by the institution), or a union member of an industry that
needs those spells (e.g. the movie business and illusion spells). In
each of those cases, the group you're a member of has negotiated to
get permission for you, and if you cast the spell outside of the
approved context, you can probably still get arrested.

This would also be true for most low-Force spells as well, although
the penalties might be lower and there may be more approved uses. If,
however, the spell was used in the commission of another crime, you
can be prosecuted as if the spell was high-Force regardless. (Using
Control Emotions to get laid is rape, whether you cast the spell at
Force 1 or Force 8, and good luck getting sympathy from a jury.)

Now, that all only applies to casting. There's no way to prove
whether or not someone *knows* a spell unless you see them cast it
(and even then you'd need testimony from a trained mage), so simply
knowing a spell can't be illegal. Possession of high-Force hermetic
spell formulae might be illegal as well, and you may need a license
for high-level hermetic libraries, but in most cases these would be
misdemeanors. They'd most often be used as supporting evidence at the
felony trial if you're caught casting that spell.

Shamans are safer, BTW. In practical terms it doesn't matter whether
shamanic formulae are illegal, because most investigators wouldn't
know what the hell they were looking at, and it's very hard to find a
shaman willing to testify and tell them. ("So I got some owl feathers
tied to a crystal. So what? Are owls illegal now? Maybe I was gonna
shoot light through the crystal, make an unlicensed spectrum? What's
the problem here, officer?")

...Oh, by the way, hi everyone. I was on this list many years ago.
I'm pulling out my dusty SR3 to start a new campaign, so I thought I'd
resubscribe. It's great to see Gurth's still around, and still Gurth.
>8->

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
http://www.escapepod.info
Message no. 7
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:29:21 +0200
According to Stephen Eley, on 16-8-05 17:52 the word on the street was...

> knowing a spell can't be illegal.

Just wait, with this "war on terror" anything will become possible
within the foreseeable future. Around here it's going to be illegal to
trivialize terrorist acts, for example; making knowledge illegal is not
such a big step, IMHO.

But anyway...

> ...Oh, by the way, hi everyone. I was on this list many years ago.
> I'm pulling out my dusty SR3 to start a new campaign, so I thought I'd
> resubscribe.

You may (or may not) want to wait a bit for SR4 to come out, and use
that instead :)

> It's great to see Gurth's still around, and still Gurth. >8->

Who else would I be? :) BTW, I recognized your name but don't remember
100% what it is you were memorable for (I guess that means you aren't
too memorable... ;) way back when. You weren't involved in any major
controversies on the list, were you?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:34:20 +0000
I would imagine that even prosecuting someone for casting a high force spell would be
difficult. You need to have another magic user who observed the casting (probably
astrally) and has some level of expertise in these matters, and even then it comes down to
your word vs. theirs. It's a tough claim to prove.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 9
From: weberm@*******.net (Michael Weber)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:49:19 -0400
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>According to Stephen Eley, on 16-8-05 17:52 the word on the street was...

>> knowing a spell can't be illegal.
>
>Just wait, with this "war on terror" anything will become possible
>within the foreseeable future. Around here it's going to be illegal to
>trivialize terrorist acts, for example; making knowledge illegal is not
>such a big step, IMHO.

Perhaps this is a silly question, but how would someone know a mage knows an illegal
spell?
Message no. 10
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:59:04 -0400
On 8/16/05, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>
> > ...Oh, by the way, hi everyone. I was on this list many years ago.
> > I'm pulling out my dusty SR3 to start a new campaign, so I thought I'd
> > resubscribe.
>
> You may (or may not) want to wait a bit for SR4 to come out, and use
> that instead :)

Yeah, I looked at the FAQs for it and listened to FanPro's podcast and
decided "not." For one thing this may be a short-term campaign; it's
geared to run six to eight sessions, and then people will decide if
they want to keep playing it or go back to D&D. It's not worth
putting down the money for that.

For another, I haven't been keeping up with the metaplot in the past
few years, and I'm not sure I dig some of the new technology and world
changes that've been intimated. "Augmented reality" and personal area
networks might be a more up-to-date prediction of the future, but
there's something nice and crunchy about the idea of sticking wires
into your head. >8-> So I'm setting my campaign in 2056, when most
of my old sourcebooks still make sense, and the megacorps are still
the Big Eight and I can keep track of them all.

And finally, even after a few years, I know the 'classic' Shadowrun
system quite well and I'm comfortable with it, screwed probabilities
and all. I'm not suggesting SR4 will be worse; I haven't read it, so
I don't know yet. I'm sure I'll pick up SR4 at some point or another,
and if I like it I may use it sometime after that. Meanwhile,
however, I *like* the SR3 rules, so why change?


> Who else would I be? :) BTW, I recognized your name but don't remember
> 100% what it is you were memorable for (I guess that means you aren't
> too memorable... ;) way back when. You weren't involved in any major
> controversies on the list, were you?

Oddly enough, I don't think I was; or at least I don't remember them
either. I was never one of the "major" players. I wrote one of the
original Matrix generators in Perl (can't remember now if it was VR1
or 2.0) and I started the ShadowGM mailling list, which ran for a
little while. Oh, and I expressed a lot of opinions, of course. >8->
That's about it, to my recollection. I do not expect ye mighty to
look upon my works and despair.

It's still good to be back.

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
http://www.escapepod.info
Message no. 11
From: me@******.net (Hexren)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:01:22 +0200
> Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>>According to Stephen Eley, on 16-8-05 17:52 the word on the street was...

>>> knowing a spell can't be illegal.
>>
>>Just wait, with this "war on terror" anything will become possible
>>within the foreseeable future. Around here it's going to be illegal to
>>trivialize terrorist acts, for example; making knowledge illegal is not
>>such a big step, IMHO.

> Perhaps this is a silly question, but how would someone know a mage knows an illegal
> spell?

---------------------------------------------

one could not know, but one could infer form testimony of people who
saw him using it and writings found in his library.
Message no. 12
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:06:23 +0200
According to Michael Weber, on 16-8-05 18:49 the word on the street was...

> Perhaps this is a silly question, but how would someone know a
> mage knows an illegal spell?

Exactly. You can't really outlaw knowledge, because then you have to
prove someone has that knowledge -- and there are only a few ways you
can really prove that, and even then only if the person being examined
is actively cooperating. You can't prove I know how to make a nuclear
bomb unless you give me an exam and I answer your questions to the best
of my ability, for example. The same with a spell: if suspect M. refuses
to cast it in front of reliable witnesses, you very likely won't be able
to prove he knows it -- you may establish that he very likely knows it,
but that's about it, IMHO. Then again, I'm no lawyer :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 13
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:03:26 +0200
According to Stephen Eley, on 16-8-05 18:59 the word on the street was...

> I started the ShadowGM mailling list, which ran for a
> little while.

That's mainly what I remember you from, now you mention it! You also set
up some random weather generation tables for Seattle, as I recall.

> Oh, and I expressed a lot of opinions, of course. >8->

At least you didn't post a Manifesto, else we wouldn't be having this
discussion now ;)

> It's still good to be back.

And it's good to see a name from the past :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 14
From: snicker@*********.net (snicker@*********.net)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:25:00 +0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Weber [mailto:weberm@*******.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 04:49 PM
>
> Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> >According to Stephen Eley, on 16-8-05 17:52 the word on the street was...
>
> >> knowing a spell can't be illegal.
> >
> >Just wait, with this "war on terror" anything will become possible
> >within the foreseeable future. Around here it's going to be illegal to
> >trivialize terrorist acts, for example; making knowledge illegal is not
> >such a big step, IMHO.
>
> Perhaps this is a silly question, but how would someone know a mage knows an illegal
> spell?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that every spell cast has an astral
"fingerprint" as it were, and certain forensic magics would be able to detect
that fingerprint, as well as associate it with the casting mage (ala ritual magic). I'm
thinking something similar to psychometry or perhaps an astral-only form of
clairvoyance...

Heck, even if they don't exist yet, I'd have forensic spells in my game anyway. If spells
were perfectly anonymous, then assassinations by magic would be the norm rather than the
exception. "For every measure, there is a greater, but opposite
counter-measure."

Snicker
Message no. 15
From: weberm@*******.net (Michael Weber)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:00:37 -0400
snicker@*********.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous [mailto:weberm@*******.net] wrote

>> Perhaps this is a silly question, but how would someone know a mage knows an
illegal
>> spell?
>
>I seem to recall reading somewhere that every spell cast has an astral
"fingerprint" as
>it were, and certain forensic magics would be able to detect that fingerprint, as well

>as associate it with the casting mage (ala ritual magic). I'm thinking something
similar >to psychometry or perhaps an astral-only form of clairvoyance...

I play a 2nd edition game (but am slowly incorporating 3rd edition stuff) but remember
them introiducing that concept to the game. However, ir requires a mage with some sort
to make a Sorcery(spellcasting:forensics) test to detect the signature. I'm not sure
if it can detect the Force of the spell, but that doesn't help if the spell was not
cast at the highest Force (yeah, as if a player mage would do THAT...). :-)
Message no. 16
From: me@******.net (Hexren)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:17:55 +0200
> snicker@*********.net wrote:
>> Ubiquitous [mailto:weberm@*******.net] wrote

>>> Perhaps this is a silly question, but how would someone know a mage knows an
illegal
>>> spell?
>>
>>I seem to recall reading somewhere that every spell cast has an astral
"fingerprint" as
>>it were, and certain forensic magics would be able to detect that fingerprint, as
well
>>as associate it with the casting mage (ala ritual magic). I'm thinking something
similar >to psychometry or perhaps an astral-only form of clairvoyance...

> I play a 2nd edition game (but am slowly incorporating 3rd edition stuff) but
remember
> them introiducing that concept to the game. However, ir requires a mage with some
sort
> to make a Sorcery(spellcasting:forensics) test to detect the signature. I'm not sure
> if it can detect the Force of the spell, but that doesn't help if the spell was not
> cast at the highest Force (yeah, as if a player mage would do THAT...). :-)

---------------------------------------------

The mage must be witness to the spell beeing cast. Witness as in
"being perceiving astraly and spending a complex action in the combat
turn the spell is beeing cast to analyze the signature" he can then
analyze the signature to learn things about (where mage was thaught,
by whom, things about how he views magic) there are no hard rules
given for this. The hard gules given enable the analyzing mage to make
a perception test if he ever again is witness to this mage casting a
spell to realize that he "knows" that mage.

Or that is how I remember it from "Awakenings"

Regards
Hexren
Message no. 17
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:23:07 -0400
On 8/16/05, snicker@*********.net <snicker@*********.net> wrote:
> > From: Michael Weber [mailto:weberm@*******.net]
> >
> > Perhaps this is a silly question, but how would someone know a mage knows an
illegal
> > spell?
>
> I seem to recall reading somewhere that every spell cast has an astral
"fingerprint" as it were, and certain forensic magics would be able to detect
that fingerprint, as well as associate it with the casting mage (ala ritual magic). I'm
thinking something similar to psychometry or perhaps an astral-only form of
clairvoyance...

Yes, that's in the standard rulebook. But that's casting the spell,
not knowing it. That's the distinction we're arguing right now.

The only way to tell if the magician *knows* a given spell would be to
use Mind Probe or some other interrogation spell, and that ought to be
inadmissible in court. (In the UCAS, if they still have any shreds
left of the US Constitution, it would violate the defendant's Fifth
Amendment rights.)

So come to think of it, yes, in a country where Mind Probes were
acceptable for prosecutors (Aztlan, perhaps) it might be illegal
simply to know a spell. But in a country with that legal ethic, the
judicial system is probably a joke anyway, and it doesn't matter if
you *actually* broke the law if the government wants you.

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - the SF podcast magazine
http://escape.extraneous.org
Message no. 18
From: lrdslvrhnd@*****.com (Kevin McB)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:11:09 -0400
On 8/16/05, Stephen Eley <sfeley@*****.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's in the standard rulebook. But that's casting the spell,
> not knowing it. That's the distinction we're arguing right now.
>
> The only way to tell if the magician *knows* a given spell would be to
> use Mind Probe or some other interrogation spell, and that ought to be
> inadmissible in court. (In the UCAS, if they still have any shreds
> left of the US Constitution, it would violate the defendant's Fifth
> Amendment rights.)

"What 5th Amendment rights? This is *insert megacorp name here*, we
don't give a frag about the UCAS Constitution, we're based out of
Japan... of course, their laws don't really apply to us, either. So,
you have the right to tell us everything, and we have the right to
keep your face intact for the funeral if we think you're holding
back..."

Even with 5th Amendment rights, I would suspect that there's basis for
using Mind Probes to discover such things. It'd be a specialized kind
of warrant to enter a mage's mind and check for 'possession of
contraband material' (ie, knowledge of a fireball spell) If Lone Star
(or even *gasp* actual city police, or FBI agents, or whoever) can
prove to a judge that there's a strong probability... well, warrant
issued, just like kicking down a suspect's door and checking for
drugs, explosives, guns, etc.

And then, of course, there's always the "Classify him as a terrorist,
who therefore HAS no rights..." ploy. Once the suspect has been
arrested in connection with a crime, that would be a rather easy thing
to do. And gee, looky here, he isn't even registered as required by
Act 381.8-4...

The UCAS is a conglomeration of the remnants of two countries that
have each been torn asunder half a dozen times, subjected to all sorts
of terrorist acts (Ghost Dance, Dunkelzahn's assassination, Bug City -
yeah, I know, that's not really a traditional terrorist act, but I'm
sure it rather qualifies - the Crash of '29, just to name a few)
There's GOTTA be laws based on the PATRIOT Act on the books, and a
willingness to do whatever it takes to safeguard the country
>
> So come to think of it, yes, in a country where Mind Probes were
> acceptable for prosecutors (Aztlan, perhaps) it might be illegal
> simply to know a spell. But in a country with that legal ethic, the
> judicial system is probably a joke anyway, and it doesn't matter if
> you *actually* broke the law if the government wants you.

I rather see the UCAS judicial system as a joke. I mean, most (or at
least many) big cities hire private security firms rather than their
own cops. Lone Star may *act* like police... but they aren't, not
really. They're a corp, just like all the others. Maybe not a big
one, by the standards of the Big 8 (or 10, or 6, or 42, or whatever it
is nowadays lol), but they're still a corp. And they have their own
set of rules they can follow - which isn't neccessarily the UCAS
Constitution. Even if a suspect gets handed over to the local
judicial system, by Lone Star or another corp, with a few burn marks
on his skin where the electricity was applied and a signed confession
of knowledge of a high-level fireball spell... well, the information
was obtained. Maybe not by the laws of the judicial system, but at
least by those of the people who obtained it.

Yeah, local cops have to play by the rules. But everyone else?
They're playing a whole different game...

Sucks to be you, chummer. Shouldn't have let yourself get caught.

Kevin
Message no. 19
From: lrdslvrhnd@*****.com (Kevin McB)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:16:19 -0400
On 8/16/05, Michael Weber <weberm@*******.net> wrote:

> I play a 2nd edition game (but am slowly incorporating 3rd edition stuff) but
remember
> them introiducing that concept to the game. However, ir requires a mage with some
sort
> to make a Sorcery(spellcasting:forensics) test to detect the signature. I'm not sure
> if it can detect the Force of the spell, but that doesn't help if the spell was not
> cast at the highest Force (yeah, as if a player mage would do THAT...). :-)
>
And of course there's always video evidence. I imagine most places
where runners might have action where there's a chance that people
will actually care enough about bringing them to court would have
cameras all over the place. And I can see pinhole cams as a standard
piece of security guard/Lone Star/police uniforms. The cam and enough
memory for an 8-hour shift wouldn't cost a whole lot, and if they
weren't networked a decker couldn't shut 'em down. Attach 'em to
their helmet or hat, and they'll see whatever the guard's looking at.
Even stick 'em in the badge on their chest, and they'll get a good
view most of the time. And if the guy's really lucky, they'll either
be able to turn off the camera when they go into the bathroom, or
they'll just erase the data themselves at the end of the shift if
nothing happened.

"The prosecution would like to submit this DVD as People's Evidence
2-B. In this footage, you can clearly see the defendant waving his
hand around just before a fireball appeared out of nowhere. If you
look closely, you can also see the blood running out of his nose
immediately afterwards..."

Kevin
Message no. 20
From: pentaj2@********.edu (pentaj2@********.edu)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:25:16 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Eley <sfeley@*****.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: Legal Magic


> The only way to tell if the magician *knows* a given spell would
> be to
> use Mind Probe or some other interrogation spell, and that ought
> to be
> inadmissible in court. (In the UCAS, if they still have any shreds
> left of the US Constitution, it would violate the defendant's Fifth
> Amendment rights.)

I recall Lone Star, Magic in the Shadows, and similar saying that
evidence gathered via Mind Probe is inadmissible in court.

See? Even the Rehnquist Court has standards.:-)
Message no. 21
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:35:02 -0400
On 8/16/05, Kevin McB <lrdslvrhnd@*****.com> wrote:
>
> "What 5th Amendment rights? This is *insert megacorp name here*, we
> don't give a frag about the UCAS Constitution, we're based out of
> Japan... of course, their laws don't really apply to us, either. So,
> you have the right to tell us everything, and we have the right to
> keep your face intact for the funeral if we think you're holding
> back..."

Yeah, sure. But in a situation like that, no one really gives a frag
whether you *actually* cast a Force 5 spell or not. In the absence of
a clear judicial process, they can toss you in prison for it whether
you're guilty or not -- because they couldn't catch the real guy and
needed a scapegoat, because they wanted you for some other reason, or
just because they feel like it.


> Even with 5th Amendment rights, I would suspect that there's basis for
> using Mind Probes to discover such things. It'd be a specialized kind
> of warrant to enter a mage's mind and check for 'possession of
> contraband material' (ie, knowledge of a fireball spell)

I doubt it -- at least not legally. The political opposition could
whip up a hell of a media storm about that. ("Whose mind will be
invaded next? IT COULD BE YOURS! So vote next Tuesday for Bigg
McLargeHuge, the man with enough brains already.")

Now, what they did to you *illegally* behind closed doors, or
somewhere on a remote military base in the Caribbean League -- that's
a totally different story. The original question was only about
what's legal and what isn't, not what people could get away with.


--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - the SF podcast magazine
http://escape.extraneous.org
Message no. 22
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:01:35 +0200
According to Stephen Eley, on 16-8-05 20:23 the word on the street was...

> The only way to tell if the magician *knows* a given spell would be to
> use Mind Probe or some other interrogation spell, and that ought to be
> inadmissible in court. (In the UCAS, if they still have any shreds
> left of the US Constitution, it would violate the defendant's Fifth
> Amendment rights.)

Something to that effect is stated in one or two books, but I don't
remember right away which ones.

> So come to think of it, yes, in a country where Mind Probes were
> acceptable for prosecutors (Aztlan, perhaps)

This is normal procedure in many NAN countries -- their courts are (in
theory) about finding out what really happened, not about finding out
who has the best lawyer :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 23
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:05:01 +0200
According to Kevin McB, on 16-8-05 22:16 the word on the street was...

> And of course there's always video evidence.

That only really works for physical spells, that have an effect that's
visible on recordings. If you zap someone with Manabolt, even if there
are effects that are visible to the naked eye (that is, if someome rolls
high enough on their Perception test to spot the spell), it won't be
visible on any video...

> "The prosecution would like to submit this DVD as People's Evidence
> 2-B. In this footage, you can clearly see the defendant waving his
> hand around just before a fireball appeared out of nowhere. If you
> look closely, you can also see the blood running out of his nose
> immediately afterwards..."

For which, I'm sure, a good lawyer would have all sorts of plausible
explanations. Waving your hands is not illegal (and, in any case, not
required for SR magic) and the nosebleed could just result from the
shockwave of the fireball explosion rupturing some blood vessels in the
unfortunate victim's nose...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 24
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
> For which, I'm sure, a good lawyer would have all sorts of
> plausible explanations. Waving your hands is not illegal (and, in
> any case, not required for SR magic) and the nosebleed could just
> result from the shockwave of the fireball explosion rupturing some
> blood vessels in the unfortunate victim's nose...

[OT] What shock wave? I thought the fire simply flashed into
existance in a shere, existing simultaneously throughout the AOE. If
anything, there'd be a slight implosion effect as all the air around
the sphere rushed in to the sudden oxygen vacuum. :p

(yes, I am still thinking of a previous thread...)

[back on topic] For magic to be illegal, and for spells above a
certain force to be illegal, there has to be some discernable way to
gauge magic use and spell force. Perhaps not for the layman, but
certaintly for a paranormal forensics expert. I can see a case where
thaumaturgy professors with high knowledge skills pertaining to magic
(Sorcery Background Knowledge 6, etc.) being called on as expert
witnesses. I have always run my games with this in mind. Even the
un-Awakened have a chance to notice spellcasting and the
manifestation of spells. Which means there has to be something about
Sorcery that is universally and easily recognizable. Meaning cameras
can probably pick up clues. For mages to be prosecuted for knowing a
spell at Force 5 instead of Force 3, there must be a difference in
the casting effort and the resulting manifestation. Spell formulae
are, of course, de facto evidence of which force a mage knows a spell
at. Circumstantial by themselves, but great coroborating evidence.
"You can clearly see the strain and concentration on the defendant's
face is commensurate with a powerful casting. This matches visual
and forensic evidence you've already viewed, pointing to an illegally
powerful spell being used. If that does not convince you, perhaps
this will. The defendant has in his library a formula for the same
spell he is accused of using on the date in question, at a Force that
is double the legal limit. You honor, the prosecution moves for the
full fines to be levied."

Okay, so I am rambling a bit. I think the general rule is, don't
cast high force spells around cops. :)

======Korishinzo
--"Well, technically your honor, my client only has the manabolt at
force 3. It's an exclusive spell, you see, so it 'seems' to be more
powerful." :p



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message no. 25
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:57:56 +0200
According to Ice Heart, on 17-8-05 15:49 the word on the street was...

> [OT] What shock wave? I thought the fire simply flashed into
> existance in a shere, existing simultaneously throughout the AOE.

A good lawyer will not let facts stand in the way of defending a client :)

> [back on topic] For magic to be illegal, and for spells above a
> certain force to be illegal, there has to be some discernable way to
> gauge magic use and spell force. Perhaps not for the layman, but
> certaintly for a paranormal forensics expert.

All you need is a glass cube with a dial on the front and a button on
the side, don't you?

> Which means there has to be something about
> Sorcery that is universally and easily recognizable.

I've always visualized this as colors, ripples in the air, and similar
effects usually associated with magic.

> Meaning cameras can probably pick up clues.

IMHO, only if it's a physical spell. It's always been said that mana
spells can't be recorded, so I would find it a bit odd if their
side-effects (that is, the bits by which you can notice that it's magic)
could be recorded.

> Spell formulae are, of course, de facto evidence of which force
> a mage knows a spell at.

But you may need to prove that the suspect actually learned the spell
from that formula. Otherwise, there are all sorts of loopholes they can
get out through: "Yes, your honor, I bought that formula with the
intention of learning the spell it represents, but I have not actually
had the chance to do so." Which is probably illegal as well, but
probably not as severe a crime as actually casting the spell and causing
harm with it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 26
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:24:42 -0400
On 8/17/05, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>
> But you may need to prove that the suspect actually learned the spell
> from that formula. Otherwise, there are all sorts of loopholes they can
> get out through: "Yes, your honor, I bought that formula with the
> intention of learning the spell it represents, but I have not actually
> had the chance to do so." Which is probably illegal as well, but
> probably not as severe a crime as actually casting the spell and causing
> harm with it.

DEFENDANT: "It's, uh...my friend's datafile. He said it was, like,
his homework for class or something. Yeah. I was just holding it for
him. He, uh, wanted to use my computer to spellcheck."

ATTORNEY: "And you mean to tell us you had no idea that this
'homework' was a Force 11 Slaughter Humans spell."

DEFENDANT: "Uh...no. How would I know that?"

ATTORNEY: "By *reading* it. Please don't waste this court's time."

DEFENDANT: "I can't read that gibberish. What, you think I'm some
kind of magician?"

ATTORNEY: (sighs, waves stack of papers) "YES! We have signed
affidavits here from four hermetic mages, all of whom agree that you
have the aura strength of a Grade 9 Initiate. One of them said your
astral signature 'was like a neon billboard shining from the Moon.'
Two of them asked for protective custody after they assensed you.
Yes, I think you're 'some kind of magician!'"

DEFENDANT: "I am? ROCK! Hey, Your Honor, can I go now? I wanna call
my mom and tell her! She's gonna flip!"

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - the SF podcast magazine
http://escape.extraneous.org
Message no. 27
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:24:48 -0400
At 09:09 AM 8/16/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>On 8/16/05, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

>> What I mean is: you'll probably have to go to some or another desk, fill
>> out forms, wait a while, and finally either get your permit, or have it
>> be denied (at which point you're probably able to file an appeal against
>> the decision).
>
>Borrowing from the concealed-carry analogy above, some
>states/countries might require the applicant to complete some sort of
>safety course, take a proficiency test, or otherwise demonstrate that
>they understand how to use the spell they're applying to have licensed
>safely.

I bet some examples of that would be quite amusing.
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 28
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:27:24 -0400
At 11:52 AM 8/16/2005 -0400, you wrote:

>Shamans are safer, BTW. In practical terms it doesn't matter whether
>shamanic formulae are illegal, because most investigators wouldn't
>know what the hell they were looking at, and it's very hard to find a
>shaman willing to testify and tell them. ("So I got some owl feathers
>tied to a crystal. So what? Are owls illegal now? Maybe I was gonna
>shoot light through the crystal, make an unlicensed spectrum? What's
>the problem here, officer?")

I'm sure examination with someone with skill in Magic Theory or Sorcery
would know for sure.
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 29
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:21:43 -0400
At 04:57 PM 8/17/2005 +0200, Gurth wrote:
>According to Ice Heart, on 17-8-05 15:49 the word on the street was...

>> Which means there has to be something about
>> Sorcery that is universally and easily recognizable.
>
>I've always visualized this as colors, ripples in the air, and similar
>effects usually associated with magic.

There are rules on how to determine if these effects are noted.

>> Meaning cameras can probably pick up clues.
>
>IMHO, only if it's a physical spell. It's always been said that mana
>spells can't be recorded, so I would find it a bit odd if their
>side-effects (that is, the bits by which you can notice that it's magic)
>could be recorded.

You're right, but what does someone taking a Deadly wound from a Mana
spell look like? Does he simply fall down? Does his head explode?


--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 30
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:03:11 +0200
According to Ubiquitous, on 12-9-05 02:24 the word on the street was...

I've been meaning to ask: Ubiquitous, is there a particular reason you
often seem to reply to threads that are about a month old? :)

>>Borrowing from the concealed-carry analogy above, some
>>states/countries might require the applicant to complete some sort of
>>safety course, take a proficiency test, or otherwise demonstrate that
>>they understand how to use the spell they're applying to have licensed
>>safely.
>
> I bet some examples of that would be quite amusing.

Check page 51 of MITS :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 31
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 04:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
--- Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net> wrote:

> You're right, but what does someone taking a Deadly
> wound from a Mana
> spell look like? Does he simply fall down? Does his
> head explode?

Perhaps mana spells physically manifest in ways that
are highly ambiguous as to what the actual cause of
the effect was. It could be interesting to take that
to the point of phantom bullet wounds developing, but
such an approach seems a bit... too weird for SR.

When hit by a sufficiently intricate manaball people
might just fall over and seem to die of natural causes
in that they have spontaneous & naturally developing
wounds or internal haemmorhaging. I.E.: the only hint
an unawakened forensics would have that there was
magic involved would be the fact that a case is
utterly uncriminal in its appearance (so why would the
forensics team be called in in the first place?). I
think SR magic is generally considered a bit more
flashy and explicit than that, but it might make for
an interesting scenario.

In a combat situation magical involvement might be
seen as guessable if there hadn't been much in the way
of gunfire, as I wouldn't want to play a game wherein
people spontaneously slip up and break their necks due
to being hit with a manabolt. OTOH consider an
assassination at a cocktail party: to the unawakened
masses it'd be anybody's guess whether the host is
groaning and doubling up due to a magician's attack or
due to too much drink.

Considering the above gave me an interesting insight
in the 6th world; hardly anybody will authoritatively
know what is coming from where anymore. Remind
yourself of how these days everything is in fact
explicable by science, whereas in the 6th world
anything you experience could in fact be caused by
some nitwit manipulating a bunch of supernatural
forces that are beyond 99,999% of the population's
capability to shape or understand. I'd say the
resulting epistemologically challenged state of the
unawakened would depend on the prevalence of magical
activity in their environment, as well as the physical
effort it takes to use magic. If there is a small
minority that uses magic it won't be something that is
encountered every day, as the physical effort (time,
drain, etc.) required to sufficiently affect the
unawakened would be of a magnitude beyond the
capabilities of the magicians to fulfill. I wonder if
people in 2070 still shrug off the presence of magic,
or whether they are actively wary of it, especially
considering how much of the world around them can also
be manipulated using wireless cyberdecks and suchlike.
Perhaps people take very little for granted in that
day and age, or perhaps things aren't as bad as they
seem from the perspective of a Shadowrunner.

For concreteness' sake, try a thought experiment: be
"on your guard" for magical effects; any movement,
perceptible change or even thought in your head could
be the cause of something that is beyond your direct
experience or capability to change (barring a
willpower test :). Imagine having to do this all the
time between getting up and finally going to work
where they have magical security. It'd be a paranoid
world outside of the protected enclaves (and even in
those there'd be reasons to be on one's guard).

I do believe I've so far underplayed the more obvious
physical effects of magic in SR (manifesting spirits,
elemental spells, levitating people, a dragon for
president), but given the rarity of magicians these
could in fact be occurrences the average citizen
wouldn't expect to witness or encounter. There'd be a
lot of magic on the news, but little actual magic
would seep down into people's daily lives. I do think
this would lead to everyday things taking on magical
shapes (cereals, clothing, furniture), whereas a
makeover spell would still raise a lot of eyebrows if
not performed stealthily in the middle of a street.

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 32
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:58:39 +0200
According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on 12-9-05 13:44 the word on the
street was...

> When hit by a sufficiently intricate manaball people
> might just fall over and seem to die of natural causes
> in that they have spontaneous & naturally developing
> wounds or internal haemmorhaging.

I always imagine mana combat spells as causing things like heart
attacks, seizures, and similar things that aren't really visible without
doing an autopsy.

> I think SR magic is generally considered a bit more
> flashy and explicit than that

If you take the (SR3) TN to spot magic and the Perception rules as
guidelines, then it's not really very flashy, IMHO. 4 + Magic - Force
means that a Force 3 spell has a TN of 4 + 6 - 3 = 7 to see, which means
the man on the street has about a fifty-fifty chance of even noticing
anything anything at all (1 success), let alone seeing enough to deduce
that magic is being used (multiple successes).

In SR4, doing the same requires a Perception skill test, with a
threshold equal to one-half the caster's Magic rating, but you get extra
dice equal to the Force of the spell being cast, as well as for being a
magician yourself, assensing, etc. But still, this means the man on the
street rolls 2 dice (his Intuition attribute, -1 for defaulting to
Perception) plus 3 for the spell's Force, and needs 3 hits (given the
same Magic 6 caster as above). With 5 dice, this is somewhat unlikely,
and probably puts the chances of spotting the spell at about the same
level as in SR3 -- if not lower.

My conclusion: despite the SR artwork of the past 16 years, magic is not
very flashy at all :)

> anything you experience could in fact be caused by
> some nitwit manipulating a bunch of supernatural
> forces that are beyond 99,999% of the population's
> capability to shape or understand.

Or by you being hooked up to a simsense feed without your knowledge.
Plenty of potential for people to go mad thinking this sort of thing is
the case :) (But get your group to play the Over The Edge RPG by Atlas
Games if you really want to have fun with this kind of thing...)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 33
From: Lance@******.com (Lance)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:51:16 -0700
Gurth wrote:

> According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on 12-9-05 13:44 the word on the
> street was...
>
>> When hit by a sufficiently intricate manaball people
>> might just fall over and seem to die of natural causes
>> in that they have spontaneous & naturally developing
>> wounds or internal haemmorhaging.
>
>
>
> I always imagine mana combat spells as causing things like heart
> attacks, seizures, and similar things that aren't really visible
> without doing an autopsy.


In our group we treat it as the same physical effects as a magician
taking physical damage from casting a spell with force higher than their
magic rating. I think there's description of it in the main SR3 book.
Message no. 34
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:46:48 -0400
At 11:03 AM 9/12/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>According to Ubiquitous, on 12-9-05 02:24 the word on the street was...

>I've been meaning to ask: Ubiquitous, is there a particular reason you
>often seem to reply to threads that are about a month old? :)

You're lucky it's ONLY a month of back-logged email.

>>>Borrowing from the concealed-carry analogy above, some
>>>states/countries might require the applicant to complete some sort of
>>>safety course, take a proficiency test, or otherwise demonstrate that
>>>they understand how to use the spell they're applying to have licensed
>>>safely.
>>
>> I bet some examples of that would be quite amusing.
>
>Check page 51 of MITS :)

If that's the pic I am thinking of (I play a mix of 2nd and 3rd edition),
yeah, that is pretty funny.
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 35
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Legal Magic
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:55:29 +0200
According to Ubiquitous, on 23-9-05 19:46 the word on the street was...

>>I've been meaning to ask: Ubiquitous, is there a particular reason you
>>often seem to reply to threads that are about a month old? :)
>
> You're lucky it's ONLY a month of back-logged email.

We're down to about a week and a half now -- you're making progress :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Legal Magic, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!