Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:04:47 GMT
On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 05:37:01 +0000, Avenger wrote:

> Obviously it would be a logistical impossibility to outlaw mages, but it
> would be possible to outlaw certain spell effects - like fireball,
> putting a legality rating on it similar to the higher end milspec
> firearms... or higher. This not only governs what mages do in public,
> but also gives law enforcement and the judicial system, guidelines on
> how to deal with them. Just because it doesn't mention it in the books,
> doesn't mean it isn't possible, or logical.

This is very interesting. Since the mere *possession* of anything more
lethal (and mundane) as a knife or holdout pistol can merit a fine or
imprisonment, you /could/ argue that the mere *possession* of certain
spells of a similar lethality should also merit similar penalties.

If a particular case involved assault via manabolt and there isn't enough
evidence to prove intent, the prosecution could reduce the charges to a
lesser charge of "possession of a manabolt spell". Of course, the hard
part would be confiscating said spell :) Perhaps "spell permits" would be
in order?



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 2
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 05:20:18 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-16 04:06:50 EST, jlindsay@******.CA writes:

>
> This is very interesting. Since the mere *possession* of anything more
> lethal (and mundane) as a knife or holdout pistol can merit a fine or
> imprisonment, you /could/ argue that the mere *possession* of certain
> spells of a similar lethality should also merit similar penalties.

This discussion has been tossed around heavily in the games here of the past.
In our games, a Talismonger can't even sell a "Combat Fetish" without an
appropriate license. Weapon Foci are similar, as are Combat Foci or Specific
Spell (Combat Type). Yeah sure, not all combat magic kills. Just half of
it.... ;)

> If a particular case involved assault via manabolt and there isn't enough
> evidence to prove intent, the prosecution could reduce the charges to a
> lesser charge of "possession of a manabolt spell". Of course, the hard
> part would be confiscating said spell :) Perhaps "spell permits" would be
> in order?

How about a labotomy???

Or better yet, psychtropic submission. "Before you cast that spell again for
the next year, you are going to go stick your hand on a sizzling hot stove"

-K
Message no. 3
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 13:50:38 +0000
On 16 Nov 97, J. Keith Henry disseminated foul capitalist propaganda
by writing:

<snip>

> This discussion has been tossed around heavily in the games here of
> the past.
> In our games, a Talismonger can't even sell a "Combat Fetish"
> without an
> appropriate license. Weapon Foci are similar, as are Combat Foci or
> Specific Spell (Combat Type). Yeah sure, not all combat magic
> kills. Just half of it.... ;)

So, what about Manipulation spells? You know, Levitate person and
Fix, or Control Thoughts and Flamebomb?


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike; FIAWOL
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Make something foolproof, and they just come up with a better fool.
Message no. 4
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:06:09 -0500
James Lindsay wrote:
> This is very interesting. Since the mere *possession* of anything more
> lethal (and mundane) as a knife or holdout pistol can merit a fine or
> imprisonment, you /could/ argue that the mere *possession* of certain
> spells of a similar lethality should also merit similar penalties.

How can you prove possesion of a spell? Beyond a credible witness or two
seeing someone casting the spells, proving that someone knows a spell is
pretty hard, and then you get into the legality of knowledge...

> If a particular case involved assault via manabolt and there isn't enough
> evidence to prove intent, the prosecution could reduce the charges to a
> lesser charge of "possession of a manabolt spell". Of course, the hard
> part would be confiscating said spell :) Perhaps "spell permits" would be
> in order?

The grimoir settled the intent part. You can't _not_ intend to hit/kill
someone with a manabolt.

--
Craig J Wilhelm Jr

Life's just one damned thing after another.
Afterlife RPG Page
http://home.earthlink.net/~craigjwjr/arpgp/
I-Chat Username: craigjwjr
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d? s+:+ a-- C++ !U--- !P !L- !E-- W++ N++
o K- w++ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE+++ Y+ PGP++ t-
5+++ X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+ G e++ h* r+ y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 5
From: "Logan Graves <Fenris>" <logan1@*****.INTERCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:21:36 -0500
In our last episode, jlindsay@******.CA writes:
>
> If a particular case involved assault via manabolt and there isn't
> enough evidence to prove intent, the prosecution could reduce the
> charges to a lesser charge of "possession of a manabolt spell". Of
> course, the hard part would be confiscating said spell :) Perhaps
> "spell permits" would be in order?

Well, you could always use the British system: nothing but "State
Licensed Mages."


> How about a labotomy???

Speaking as a Street Sam, *that* would be _my_ first chioce! ;-D

--Fenris (SIN:4413963)
_______________________________________________logan1@*****.intercom.net
(>) [Meta-]physics isn't a religion.
If it were, we'd have a much
easier time raising money.
(>) --Leon Lederman, [hermetic mage]
Message no. 6
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:51:31 +0000
In article <346eb345.26446759@****.direct.ca>, James Lindsay
<jlindsay@******.CA> waffled & burbled about Magic and the Law
>On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 05:37:01 +0000, Avenger wrote:

>> putting a legality rating on it similar to the higher end milspec
>> firearms... or higher. This not only governs what mages do in public,
>> but also gives law enforcement and the judicial system, guidelines on
>> how to deal with them. Just because it doesn't mention it in the books,
>> doesn't mean it isn't possible, or logical.
>
>This is very interesting.

Thankyou, it's something that I've slowly been implementing in my game,
low threat spells, like Heal, etc are "legal". They are used - as
Jeremiah points out, in hospitals - though there are bound to be some
people, like the Jehovah's (for instance) who may/will refuse the
treatment. Up to the highly illegal spells, like mind control,
fireball, mana ball, invisibility... etc.

It doesn't make mages unplayable, but it does help to make the player
think about what they're doing, and maintain game balance, by preventing
the mage character from taking over.

One thing that always amuses me on the list, is the comment "frag the
mage first". How does anyone know who the mage is _to_ frag him/her
first? The mage might be the guy in jeans and t-shirt leaning on the
fence talking to his girlfriend, he might be the guy watching the
exctitement with fifty other people from the apartment block across the
street. How many mages walk around with a neon sign over their heads
stating "I'm a Mage - please frag me first." Hence my reasoning,
give spells legality ratings. It works. However, I do add a physically
visible component to spells as well...

>Since the mere *possession* of anything more
>lethal (and mundane) as a knife or holdout pistol can merit a fine or
>imprisonment, you /could/ argue that the mere *possession* of certain
>spells of a similar lethality should also merit similar penalties.

I "would" argue this. In all parts of the world, certain weapons are
illegal, certain weapons need licences, and other weapons are only
available to the military. Why is this so different in Shadowrun when
it comes to mages?

>If a particular case involved assault via manabolt and there isn't enough
>evidence to prove intent, the prosecution could reduce the charges to a
>lesser charge of "possession of a manabolt spell". Of course, the hard
>part would be confiscating said spell :) Perhaps "spell permits" would be
>in order?

Not necessarily spell permits. It would be kind of difficult to get a
spell permit for fireball, or mana ball, or even urban renewal and
suchlike. "You want WHAT! ... Why?"

It would be a little bit like a guy from the gun club down the road,
wanting to licence a 155mm self propelled howitzer for...
Rabbit hunting...

Possession or possession with intent, are difficult with spells. Just
because you know the spell, doesn't mean you'll use it, it also doesn't
help the courts to decide whether or not you know the spell, not without
some serious mind probing that may result in permanent damage to the
mage. No, it's simply the ability to learn that spell, that must be
taken into account. The mage _could_ learn the spell, he/she _could_
use it. I don't see that penal sentences would be viable for mages,
after all, they can entertain themselves with illusions, and
systematically frag with the minds of prison guards, making their own
lives a living luxury. No, DNA registration, attendance to government
run establishments and licencing as a mage should suffice.

After all if the mage doesn't have any criminal intent, they won't mind
dna typing and the other restrictions placed upon their art - will they?
They won't mind being licenced, monitored and recorded - will they?

They won't mind helping the corporations and government research
establishments to understand magic, and they have no reason to hide do
they? I mean, it's not as if criminal activities pay better is it?

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 7
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:50:43 +0000
On 16 Nov 97, Avenger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

<snip>

> One thing that always amuses me on the list, is the comment "frag
> the mage first". How does anyone know who the mage is _to_ frag
> him/her first? The mage might be the guy in jeans and t-shirt

Well, in the situations were the comment "geek the mage first"
applies, it's usually pretty clear who is the mage. It's the one who,
when the cybered monster was shooting at the guards with his AR,
waved his hands a bit, pulled a bit of bone out of his pocket and
whammo! A firebolt blasts your buddy to pieces. (Force 6 spells are
noticeable).

And if you've got a mage on your team, he can show you who the mage
is. (Ahh, the BattleTac and Astral Perception combined. I'm lucky my
GM is not on the list anymore... ;>)

<snip>

> >If a particular case involved assault via manabolt and there isn't enough
> >evidence to prove intent, the prosecution could reduce the charges to a
> >lesser charge of "possession of a manabolt spell". Of course, the hard
> >part would be confiscating said spell :) Perhaps "spell permits" would
be
> >in order?
>
> Not necessarily spell permits. It would be kind of difficult to get
> a spell permit for fireball, or mana ball, or even urban renewal and
> suchlike. "You want WHAT! ... Why?"

Well, Urban Renewal would be an OK spell for a worker in the
Demolitions, Inc.
And spell permits would be a problem if you try to learn from a
licensed mage. But what about shamans, eh? They can say: "My totem
gave that to me". ;> Esp. if they learned the spell in an Astral
Quest...

<snip>
> Possession or possession with intent, are difficult with spells.
> Just because you know the spell, doesn't mean you'll use it, it also
> doesn't help the courts to decide whether or not you know the spell,
> not without some serious mind probing that may result in permanent
> damage to the mage. No, it's simply the ability to learn that

Actually, Mind Probing is easy, given enough time. The problem is,
Constitution outlaws it, doesn't it? That is, you can't just cast the
Decrease Willpower -4, Overstimulation, and then whack the mage with
a Mind Probe.
I mean, it's illegal. There is the Fourth Amendment (is it the
fourth? I'm not sure)....

> spell, that must be taken into account. The mage _could_ learn the
> spell, he/she _could_ use it. I don't see that penal sentences
> would be viable for mages, after all, they can entertain themselves
> with illusions, and systematically frag with the minds of prison
> guards, making their own lives a living luxury. No, DNA
> registration, attendance to government run establishments and
> licencing as a mage should suffice.


> After all if the mage doesn't have any criminal intent, they won't
> mind dna typing and the other restrictions placed upon their art -
> will they? They won't mind being licenced, monitored and recorded -
> will they?

Well, there's all that freedom stuff in the Constitution... And
monitoring and recording is infringing somebodys personal freedom.

I mean, it's not like all those "PGP freaks" are really Mafia and KGB
Agents, so why do they mind the government-provided encryption key
idea?

And besides, all those permits mean squat to a SINless mage. He's
fragged when he gets caught chucking Manaballs left and right, true,
but so is his buddy with military-class reaction enhancing cyberware,
military-class armor and an assault rifle loaded with cop-killing
APDS bullets.
I mean, all this stuff can be used only for killing. They're both
fragged, so in that case your point is moot... Isn't it? ;P


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike; FIAWOL
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Fight unemployment - waste police time.
Message no. 8
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:34:00 GMT
on 16.11.97 trrkt@*****.ONET.PL wrote:

t> > This discussion has been tossed around heavily in the games here of
t> > the past.
t> > In our games, a Talismonger can't even sell a "Combat Fetish"
t> > without an
t> > appropriate license. Weapon Foci are similar, as are Combat Foci or
t> > Specific Spell (Combat Type). Yeah sure, not all combat magic
t> > kills. Just half of it.... ;)
t>
t> So, what about Manipulation spells? You know, Levitate person and
t> Fix, or Control Thoughts and Flamebomb?

Well, if someone proofs you used a 'control thoughts' on him, you're
locked up until the eighth world begins. And Flamebomb might not be called
a combat spell, but just because hammer isn't called a weapon doesn't mean
I can kill you with it and get away.



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 9
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 21:54:55 +0000
In article <199711161612.RAA32767@*****.onet.pl>, "Leszek Karlik, aka
Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL> waffled & burbled about Magic and the Law
>On 16 Nov 97, Avenger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
>writing:
>
><snip>
>
>> One thing that always amuses me on the list, is the comment "frag
>> the mage first". How does anyone know who the mage is _to_ frag
>> him/her first? The mage might be the guy in jeans and t-shirt
>
>Well, in the situations were the comment "geek the mage first"
>applies, it's usually pretty clear who is the mage. It's the one who,
>when the cybered monster was shooting at the guards with his AR,
>waved his hands a bit, pulled a bit of bone out of his pocket and
>whammo! A firebolt blasts your buddy to pieces. (Force 6 spells are
>noticeable).

Force 6 fireballs are noticeable yes, but provided the mage has LOS, he
doesn't need to be with the team. He can be leaning on a stuffer shack,
or sitting up a tree. And WHAMMO! A force 6 fireball detonates in
amongst the sec guards... but where from? The young guy in jeans and t-
shirt over there by the stuffer shack? the chap in the business suit?
The woman over there walking her dog? Who??? There are no necessary
signs that would reveal a mage to anyone except an astrally perceiving
mage, and when you have a bunch of nutters with automatic weapons
attempting to turn you into a t-bag, it's unlikely that any mage with
any amount of common sense is going to go astral to find out if a mage
_might_ be in the area, and then try to identify the schmuck.

You don't need to be close to chuck a fireball you only need to see the
area. My long distance eyesight is pretty good, which means, from a
good height I can see for several miles.

>And if you've got a mage on your team, he can show you who the mage
>is. (Ahh, the BattleTac and Astral Perception combined. I'm lucky my
>GM is not on the list anymore... ;>)

If I had a mage on the team, there is no way I'm going to let him come
with us on a run. He/she stays back where they can do the most good,
and I don't have to worry about them keeping up. Once the arae is
cleard, then they can come in. Mages are rare, they are a valuable
commodity. Especially mages who don't mind getting shot at for a few
thousand dollars a run.... Sorry, nuyen.

>> Not necessarily spell permits. It would be kind of difficult to get
>> a spell permit for fireball, or mana ball, or even urban renewal and
>> suchlike. "You want WHAT! ... Why?"
>
>Well, Urban Renewal would be an OK spell for a worker in the
>Demolitions, Inc.

Yes. But it would be under strictly controlled guidelines, licenced by
the corporation employing the mage and the local/national government,
who has gone through an intensive training process, to make sure he
drops the building just right. Not some casual chappy you've just met
in the local bar.

But that answer the Why? question in this instance, how about others...
Exactly the reason why there must be legislation to cover the very
existence of mages. A way they can be continually and unfailingly
monitored and kept under control....

>And spell permits would be a problem if you try to learn from a
>licensed mage. But what about shamans, eh? They can say: "My totem
>gave that to me". ;> Esp. if they learned the spell in an Astral
>Quest...


Yeah, I can see it now. "Honest officer, I didn't mean to burn your
vehicle with a fireball, my totem/spirit guide" just gave it to me
before I realised what had happened. <g>

Legislation, laws, guidelines, DNA geno-typing. etc etc etc ..

>Actually, Mind Probing is easy, given enough time. The problem is,
>Constitution outlaws it, doesn't it? That is, you can't just cast the
>Decrease Willpower -4, Overstimulation, and then whack the mage with
>a Mind Probe.
>I mean, it's illegal. There is the Fourth Amendment (is it the
>fourth? I'm not sure)....

One of them, no doubt comes into play here, which is even more reason to
introduce legislation to cover these potential destroyers of worlds...
<g>

>> After all if the mage doesn't have any criminal intent, they won't
>> mind dna typing and the other restrictions placed upon their art -
>> will they? They won't mind being licenced, monitored and recorded -
>> will they?
>
>Well, there's all that freedom stuff in the Constitution... And
>monitoring and recording is infringing somebodys personal freedom.

Yes, but then if people want to own a firearm, they don't mind licencing
themselves and registering with the FBI and federal government and local
law enforcement, do they> After all, if they have no criminal intent,
then they would be more than happy to give over their personal
information.

Mages should be treated the same way as firearms. They are potentially
deadly weapons.

>I mean, it's not like all those "PGP freaks" are really Mafia and KGB
>Agents, so why do they mind the government-provided encryption key
>idea?

Because it's an ivasion of their ability to transfer things without
anybody knowing what they've transfered. Supposedly it's an invasion of
privacy, but without some sort of monitoring capability they are merely
giving crime a nice easy method to avoid the laws covering their
activities.

However, I'd rather not get into that conversation, for the simple
reason in those sorts of circumstances, I tend to play devil's advocate
and take the contrary view, which seems to really annoy some people <g>

>And besides, all those permits mean squat to a SINless mage. He's
>fragged when he gets caught chucking Manaballs left and right, true,
>but so is his buddy with military-class reaction enhancing cyberware,
>military-class armor and an assault rifle loaded with cop-killing
>APDS bullets.
>I mean, all this stuff can be used only for killing. They're both
>fragged, so in that case your point is moot... Isn't it? ;P

Not entirely. The cyberware has licences and a legality rating, the
weapons have licences and legality ratings. The courts have prosecution
guidelines to cover the sentences that area available to them concerning
the possession, intent and use of the weapons of the buddy.

The mage...

The law officer has a serious problem. :)

If however, there were laws and legislation to cover mages and their use
of magic in a public area, in situations and in the eyes of the law,
then the courts of the land would have a better way of dealing with
mages, and with their activities. Ultimately forcing any unlicenced mage
into the depths of paranoia and darkness. Hiding and too scared to cast
a spell in case he/she gets caught. But if that mage has NO CRIMINAL
INTENT, he/she can acquire a licence, register with the central Federal
database, and provide a genotyped-DNA sample, and walk around in public
secure in the knowledge, that any magical crimes attributed to the area,
can be proved not to be from him/her. Safe in the knowledge that
society will accept him/her because he/she has been honest enough to com
forward and stand in the eyes of the law and announce "I am a Mage, I
require registering and licencing."

Personal privacy does not enter the equation. The mage is a dangerous
weapon who might go off at any time. With laws governning their
behaviour, registration and potential ritual magic repurcussion, the
majority would think twice aboout breaking the law. Some of the more
criminally intent/hardened/inclined would give a rats ass about the
laws, but then these are the kinds of people who are now easier to track
down, because the law has a list of active mages in the area, any who
aren't registered and are found, can be considered guilty. And in the
eyes of American law, that means you are guilty until you prove
innocence... :)

<Stops, before he gets too carried away and rambles on for several more
pages.>

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 10
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 22:17:36 +0000
In article <199711161612.RAA32767@*****.onet.pl>, "Leszek Karlik, aka
Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL> writes
>On 16 Nov 97, Avenger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
>writing:
>> Not necessarily spell permits. It would be kind of difficult to get
>> a spell permit for fireball, or mana ball, or even urban renewal and
>> suchlike. "You want WHAT! ... Why?"
>
>Well, Urban Renewal would be an OK spell for a worker in the
>Demolitions, Inc.
>And spell permits would be a problem if you try to learn from a
>licensed mage. But what about shamans, eh? They can say: "My totem
>gave that to me". ;> Esp. if they learned the spell in an Astral
>Quest...

Which is why magicians in general are feared. They can learn _any_
spell, regardless of limits on formulae.

I mean, given the Internet today, if you needed a text file that was
banned in the US, would it be impossible to obtain it? Or would it be
available on some web site (for a fee, of course) based in Guyana? With
the formula you know the spell.

>> After all if the mage doesn't have any criminal intent, they won't
>> mind dna typing and the other restrictions placed upon their art -
>> will they? They won't mind being licenced, monitored and recorded -
>> will they?
>
>Well, there's all that freedom stuff in the Constitution... And
>monitoring and recording is infringing somebodys personal freedom.

But then a mage is born with the means to remove other peoples' rights
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Tell that
to the police when you carry an AK-47 into Times Square, even if it's
slung and you make no move to fire it.

>I mean, it's not like all those "PGP freaks" are really Mafia and KGB
>Agents, so why do they mind the government-provided encryption key
>idea?

Protecting your E-mail with PGP doesn't let you kill people with a
glance and a thought.

>And besides, all those permits mean squat to a SINless mage. He's
>fragged when he gets caught chucking Manaballs left and right, true,
>but so is his buddy with military-class reaction enhancing cyberware,
>military-class armor and an assault rifle loaded with cop-killing
>APDS bullets.

>I mean, all this stuff can be used only for killing. They're both
>fragged, so in that case your point is moot... Isn't it? ;P

You've never played in Pete's games :)

I'm the "combat monster" in his current campaign. I have a Browning
Ultra-Power and a (stolen) assault shotgun. The shotgun spends most of
its time under the floorboards of my flat. My net cyberware consists of
a datajack. I've fired a total of four shots in the entire campaign to
date.

I have a nasty feeling that if Julez ever gets wired or boosted reflexes
(as he deeply desires to do) his life will be as lively as that of an
unregistered magician.

Military-grade armour is incredibly obvious, an assault rifle is nearly
as bad (I have a deactivated AK-47, and it is _not_ easily hidden) and
these weapons will summon a sizeable police response.

Magic is equally destructive: so it will attract similar notice. A
report of magic is enough to justify scrambling the SWAT teams onto a
problem, with orders to shoot first and ask questions later. Not only
unhealthy for the magician, but for his or her companions.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 11
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 21:46:48 +0000
In article <6hySmhPgX3B@****.komet.teuto.de>, Tobias Berghoff
<Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE> writes
>Well, if someone proofs you used a 'control thoughts' on him, you're
>locked up until the eighth world begins. And Flamebomb might not be called
>a combat spell, but just because hammer isn't called a weapon doesn't mean
>I can kill you with it and get away.

But a hammer (pistol, knife, whatever) can be detected. How do you
"detect" a Mana Bolt spell?

You can detect magical activity, but not the spells the person knows.
And you can learn any spell in days given some Karma and the formula.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 12
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:21:44 -0500
At 09:54 PM 11/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <199711161612.RAA32767@*****.onet.pl>, "Leszek Karlik, aka
>Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL> waffled & burbled about Magic and the Law
>
>Force 6 fireballs are noticeable yes, but provided the mage has LOS, he
>doesn't need to be with the team. He can be leaning on a stuffer shack,
>or sitting up a tree. And WHAMMO! A force 6 fireball detonates in
>amongst the sec guards... but where from? The young guy in jeans and t-
>shirt over there by the stuffer shack? the chap in the business suit?
>The woman over there walking her dog? Who??? There are no necessary
>signs that would reveal a mage to anyone except an astrally perceiving
>mage, and when you have a bunch of nutters with automatic weapons
>attempting to turn you into a t-bag, it's unlikely that any mage with
>any amount of common sense is going to go astral to find out if a mage
>_might_ be in the area, and then try to identify the schmuck.
>
>You don't need to be close to chuck a fireball you only need to see the
>area. My long distance eyesight is pretty good, which means, from a
>good height I can see for several miles.

Two things:
First, there ARE rules for spotting actual spellcasting. BBB, pg 132,
NOTICING SPELLCASTING: TN = 2 * (Magic rating - Spell Force). It ain't
always easy, but with a force 6 fireball, that is a TN of 2. Must be
pretty obvious, eh? This is under the heading, as written above, noticing
spellCASTING, so I think that this means one can determine who the mage is,
he/she is the castor.

Second, there are rules for long range LOS spellcasting in the Grimoire.
Use them if you are having problems with mage snipers firing spells from 2
miles away, I think they make a lot of sense.

>But that answer the Why? question in this instance, how about others...
>Exactly the reason why there must be legislation to cover the very
>existence of mages. A way they can be continually and unfailingly
>monitored and kept under control....

read that, that IS NOT going to happen under any modern government, nor
their 205x descendants. It's postively 1984.

<snip...>
>Yes, but then if people want to own a firearm, they don't mind licencing
>themselves and registering with the FBI and federal government and local
>law enforcement, do they> After all, if they have no criminal intent,
>then they would be more than happy to give over their personal
>information.

Owners of firearms give their names, they don't give the government a way
to track them and strike them dead at any time. Big difference.

>
>Mages should be treated the same way as firearms. They are potentially
>deadly weapons.
<snip>
>The law officer has a serious problem. :)
>
>If however, there were laws and legislation to cover mages and their use
>of magic in a public area, in situations and in the eyes of the law,
>then the courts of the land would have a better way of dealing with
>mages, and with their activities. Ultimately forcing any unlicenced mage
>into the depths of paranoia and darkness. Hiding and too scared to cast
>a spell in case he/she gets caught. But if that mage has NO CRIMINAL
>INTENT, he/she can acquire a licence, register with the central Federal
>database, and provide a genotyped-DNA sample, and walk around in public
>secure in the knowledge, that any magical crimes attributed to the area,
>can be proved not to be from him/her. Safe in the knowledge that
>society will accept him/her because he/she has been honest enough to com
>forward and stand in the eyes of the law and announce "I am a Mage, I
>require registering and licencing."

Okay, why would the law be able to do nothing with the mage? If caught,
they were the co-conspirators in a criminal act, right along with everyone
else. They alsolikely carried illegal firearms. Beyond that, if they were
observed using magic with malicious intent (say casting at corp sec or
lonestar), that's resisting arrest, fellonius assault with a deadly weapon
(magic), and a bunch of other crap. They go to jail for just as long.


>
>Personal privacy does not enter the equation. The mage is a dangerous
>weapon who might go off at any time. With laws governning their
>behaviour, registration and potential ritual magic repurcussion, the
>majority would think twice aboout breaking the law. Some of the more
>criminally intent/hardened/inclined would give a rats ass about the
>laws, but then these are the kinds of people who are now easier to track
>down, because the law has a list of active mages in the area, any who
>aren't registered and are found, can be considered guilty. And in the
>eyes of American law, that means you are guilty until you prove
>innocence... :)

Saying the "mage is a dangerous person who might go off at any time" is a
serious oversimplification. The mage is a person, they have power, it is
possible they might abuse their power. This does not make mages inherently
unstable as you seem to be suggesting. Also, just because a mage isn't
registered, no CAS/UCAS LoneStar subsidiary can assume guilt. I'm pretty
sure the constitution still exists fairly intact. Besides, it isn't
exactly easy to spot mages on sight (if they aren't throwing spells around).

In terms of a logical system of registration (instead of the paraniod one)
take a present day example: upon receiving a black belt in a martial art in
the US (or perhaps just LA/California, I'm not sure), you have to go to the
local police station and register yourself as a deadly weapon. Period, no
DNA typing, no implantation of microchips in the brain to track you. You
are simply registered. Then, if you ever get in a fight, you are charged
with assault with a deadly weapon unless you can prove self defense. End
of story. Why should it be any more complicated for a mage? They have a
skill with which they can do damage. If they use it to do damage, they are
charged with a more serious crime than the average person. There is no
reason, and no way in the former US, that anything as Orwellian as DNA
typing of all mages will ever happen, and it doesn't need to. (And a
matter of personal privacy is always an issue in the former US.) The
legislature simply needs to reflect the fact that using offensive magic is
like using a deadly weapon, and prosecute as such. There is no attempt to
"monitor and control" at all times owner of guns or practitioners of
martial arts, so why the mage?

You also seem to imply that a registered mage can be proved not to have
committed a crime from his DNA sample, I don't think forsenic magic works
like that. The registered mage is just as likely to be the criminal and no
one the wiser, so where is anything gained by having him typed? If he is
caught commiting the crime, then they already know who did it, so again,
what benefit from DNA registration accept some seriously questionable
government practices, treating all magically active like criminals, and
only a step shy of rounding them up and finding a final solution, at least
to the mind of most mages, and likely most americans. Your system of
control would never happen in the present US, and I have a hard time
believing it would take place in the 205x versions either.

--DT
Message no. 13
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:40:59 +0000
On 16 Nov 97, Avenger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

> In article <199711161612.RAA32767@*****.onet.pl>, "Leszek Karlik,
> aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL> waffled & burbled about Magic and
> the Law

Waffled & burbled? Sheesh. You damn capitalist propagandists sure do
your homework. ;>

<this part shown cloaked>

> >Well, in the situations were the comment "geek the mage first"
> >applies, it's usually pretty clear who is the mage. It's the one who,
> >when the cybered monster was shooting at the guards with his AR,
> >waved his hands a bit, pulled a bit of bone out of his pocket and
> >whammo! A firebolt blasts your buddy to pieces. (Force 6 spells are
> >noticeable).
>
> Force 6 fireballs are noticeable yes, but provided the mage has LOS,
> he doesn't need to be with the team. He can be leaning on a stuffer
> shack, or sitting up a tree. And WHAMMO! A force 6 fireball
> detonates in amongst the sec guards... but where from? The young
> guy in jeans and t- shirt over there by the stuffer shack? the chap
> in the business suit? The woman over there walking her dog? Who???

Uhhh... Excuse me. What's a stuffer shack, the chap in the business
suit and the woman with her dog doing near a top-secret R&D facility
of an Atzlan sub-branch?
And you're assuming a lot of luck if the mage has LOS while being
outside of the penetrated facility.

> There are no necessary signs that would reveal a mage to anyone
> except an astrally perceiving mage, and when you have a bunch of
> nutters with automatic weapons attempting to turn you into a t-bag,
> it's unlikely that any mage with any amount of common sense is
> going to go astral to find out if a mage _might_ be in the area, and
> then try to identify the schmuck.

No, no, no, no. No. Mages do not sit on the outside of the secured
area, waiting to be killed by goons with automatic weapons. They
usually lie in the centre of the facility, or in corp HQ downtown (if
the corp doesn't have lots of mages) and do a quick slip through the
astral to check out on things.

> You don't need to be close to chuck a fireball you only need to see
> the area. My long distance eyesight is pretty good, which means,
> from a good height I can see for several miles.

Have you seen the (optional) range modifiers table from Grimmy?
Besides, you can see for several miles, and with optical binocs even
more. So fraggin' what?!?! If you can see the target from outsite,
you're better off putting a cheap backup sammy with a sniper rifle
and one or two rockets in the same place. Sniper rifles are better
than spells for single target elimination, you know... And they don't
leave astral traces, they don't attract the elementals guarding the
site and they can not be eliminated in astral combat (you know, you
just have to get a watcher to guard somebody in astral and intercept
spells. Odds are, watcher will get plastered, but it may get
lucky...).
And Barett ammo should go even through a quickened bullet barrier.

> >And if you've got a mage on your team, he can show you who the mage
> >is. (Ahh, the BattleTac and Astral Perception combined. I'm lucky my
> >GM is not on the list anymore... ;>)
>
> If I had a mage on the team, there is no way I'm going to let him
> come with us on a run. He/she stays back where they can do the most

No? Well, on our last run, my mage died 'cause the other two mages
were left behind, as astral backup. No one else to stabilize or
heal/treat my char... Bye, bye.
(BTW: I know three mageboys in one team is excessive, but it was a
crossover session, with two separate gaming groups coming together to
work on a run)

> good, and I don't have to worry about them keeping up. Once the
> arae is cleard, then they can come in. Mages are rare, they are a

Not if you get splattered by that elemental during the cleaning
process. Or by that sorcery adept guarding the site, for that matter.
And unless the mage can see through walls, odds are he won't see
squat. Most buildings don't have transparent walls, ya know. <grin>

And if corp security learned one thing, it's "block the LOS to
potential target, and you're much more safe then before".

> valuable commodity. Especially mages who don't mind getting shot at
> for a few thousand dollars a run.... Sorry, nuyen.

<this part is Invisible, courtesy of Mage, Shaman & co.>

> >Well, Urban Renewal would be an OK spell for a worker in the
> >Demolitions, Inc.
>
> Yes. But it would be under strictly controlled guidelines, licenced
> by the corporation employing the mage and the local/national
> government, who has gone through an intensive training process, to
> make sure he drops the building just right. Not some casual chappy
> you've just met in the local bar.

Eh... I wouldn't call ANY kind of trained magician "a casual chappy".
He may look like one, but he's not casual.

> But that answer the Why? question in this instance, how about
> others... Exactly the reason why there must be legislation to cover
> the very existence of mages. A way they can be continually and
> unfailingly monitored and kept under control....

I would also advise controlling all the people with skill to shoot
firearms. Oh, yeah, and after the Oklahoma bombing, the chemists,
too. I mean, you can flatten a building with a fertilizer - why
bother with a spell? And one that leaves astral traces of yor spell
signature to boot...
Unfailingly monitoring and keeping under control... All for the
Greater Good (TM). You know, I think I've heard this somewhere
before...
I think the communists wanted to control and monitor everything.... I
don't want them back, you know. ;>
Orwell, anyone?

<mundane snip>

> Legislation, laws, guidelines, DNA geno-typing. etc etc etc ..

Laws and legislation, yes. DNA geno-typing? Who's to say somebody
won't Ritual Mind-Control me to kill a political dissident, and then
lay blame on me, the poor mage?
UCAS is a free, democratic country, for now...

> >Actually, Mind Probing is easy, given enough time. The problem is,
> >Constitution outlaws it, doesn't it? That is, you can't just cast the
> >Decrease Willpower -4, Overstimulation, and then whack the mage with
> >a Mind Probe.
> >I mean, it's illegal. There is the Fourth Amendment (is it the
> >fourth? I'm not sure)....
>
> One of them, no doubt comes into play here, which is even more
> reason to introduce legislation to cover these potential destroyers
> of worlds... <g>

Yes. Licensing the learning and use of those spells is OK. But
ritual links and special harrasement... err... I mean licensing,
just 'cause you were born different, is not.

> >> After all if the mage doesn't have any criminal intent, they won't
> >> mind dna typing and the other restrictions placed upon their art -
> >> will they? They won't mind being licenced, monitored and recorded -
> >> will they?

> >Well, there's all that freedom stuff in the Constitution... And
> >monitoring and recording is infringing somebodys personal freedom.

> Yes, but then if people want to own a firearm, they don't mind
> licencing themselves and registering with the FBI and federal
> government and local law enforcement, do they> After all, if they
> have no criminal intent, then they would be more than happy to give
> over their personal information.

Actually, yes, they do. Do you have to register with FBI if you buy a
gun? In every state? Yeah, right.

And besides, registering is one thing. Monitoring and recording is
something else. I believe all the gun owners have a phone tap
and video cameras in their houses, on the expense of Federal
Government, do they?

Sheesh. I think I'm better off living in a post-comunistic country. I
mean, we need a permit to buy a gun, but we're not bugged and
video-recorded just 'cause we own a .45 ACP automatic... ;P

<snip PGP stuff>

> >And besides, all those permits mean squat to a SINless mage. He's
> >fragged when he gets caught chucking Manaballs left and right, true,
> >but so is his buddy with military-class reaction enhancing cyberware,
> >military-class armor and an assault rifle loaded with cop-killing
> >APDS bullets.
> >I mean, all this stuff can be used only for killing. They're both
> >fragged, so in that case your point is moot... Isn't it? ;P
>
> Not entirely. The cyberware has licences and a legality rating, the
> weapons have licences and legality ratings. The courts have
> prosecution guidelines to cover the sentences that area available to
> them concerning the possession, intent and use of the weapons of the
> buddy.

Yeah. Still, the sammy IS fragged. No doubts about it.

> The mage...
>
> The law officer has a serious problem. :)

No, he doesn't. Not now. He calls the forensic mage, who knows the
offender's spell signature and compares it with the astral traces
found on the scene of crime.

He calls on witnesses, who saw the mage cast a spell that caused
Willy the SecGuard to crumple and die.

And the mage gets sentenced. Posession of an unregistered deadly
spell.
(High Court, I object! My client has a registered Manadart spell for
self-defense. ;P )

> If however, there were laws and legislation to cover mages and their
> use of magic in a public area, in situations and in the eyes of the
> law, then the courts of the land would have a better way of dealing
> with mages, and with their activities. Ultimately forcing any
> unlicenced mage into the depths of paranoia and darkness. Hiding
> and too scared to cast a spell in case he/she gets caught. But if
> that mage has NO CRIMINAL INTENT, he/she can acquire a licence,
> register with the central Federal database, and provide a
> genotyped-DNA sample, and walk around in public secure in the
> knowledge, that any magical crimes attributed to the area, can be
> proved not to be from him/her. Safe in the knowledge that society
> will accept him/her because he/she has been honest enough to com
> forward and stand in the eyes of the law and announce "I am a Mage,
> I require registering and licencing."

Licenses to learn spells are OK. Genotyping and registering is not
OK. Gene sample is a ritual link, and means government mages can do
what they want with you. And if the mage knows no offensive spells,
why should he register?

> Personal privacy does not enter the equation. The mage is a
> dangerous weapon who might go off at any time. With laws governning
> their behaviour, registration and potential ritual magic
> repurcussion, the majority would think twice aboout breaking the
> law. Some of the more criminally intent/hardened/inclined would
> give a rats ass about the laws, but then these are the kinds of
> people who are now easier to track down, because the law has a list
> of active mages in the area, any who aren't registered and are

Yeah.
"Umm... High Court, I present to you the list of magically active
persons in the Redmond Barrens:
Gundamark, the Snake adept.
That's all. All others are guilty of magically killing Joe the
SecGuard. Until proven innocent.
But since they do not have SIN, they do not exist. So I suggest we
kill them and recycle their bodies." ;P

> found, can be considered guilty. And in the eyes of American law,
> that means you are guilty until you prove innocence... :)

Emmm... Isn't this the other way round?


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike; FIAWOL
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Study Art and Logic - and learn to draw your own conclusions.
Message no. 14
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:56:47 -0500
At 09:04 AM 11/16/97 GMT, you wrote:
>This is very interesting. Since the mere *possession* of anything more
>lethal (and mundane) as a knife or holdout pistol can merit a fine or
>imprisonment, you /could/ argue that the mere *possession* of certain
>spells of a similar lethality should also merit similar penalties.
>
>If a particular case involved assault via manabolt and there isn't enough
>evidence to prove intent, the prosecution could reduce the charges to a
>lesser charge of "possession of a manabolt spell". Of course, the hard
>part would be confiscating said spell :) Perhaps "spell permits" would be
>in order?

But regulation would be nearly impossible. The only time you'd see
prosecution is when the person cast the spell. If it's a destructive
spell, they were already committing a higher crime anyway. Aside from a
mind probe (which is illegal as self-incrimination) you can't find out what
spells a mage knows except through him using them. Now, possession of
spell formulae, or teaching such spells would be more easy to regulate, you
can catch someone teaching such a spell if they're under surveillance, or
search for spell notes.

losthalo
Message no. 15
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:57:54 -0500
At 03:51 PM 11/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>One thing that always amuses me on the list, is the comment "frag the
>mage first". How does anyone know who the mage is _to_ frag him/her
>first? The mage might be the guy in jeans and t-shirt leaning on the
>fence talking to his girlfriend, he might be the guy watching the
>exctitement with fifty other people from the apartment block across the
>street. How many mages walk around with a neon sign over their heads
>stating "I'm a Mage - please frag me first." Hence my reasoning,
>give spells legality ratings. It works. However, I do add a physically
>visible component to spells as well...

How does one prove which spell was used in the commission of a crime?
Whereas, it would be far simpler to prove that a spell was used, and what
it's effect was on the victim, and treat it like any other crime.
Overstimulation counts as torture, manabolt as murder (or attempted
murder), etc. The law makes very little distinction now as to methods used
for violence, aside from the distinction between mere assault and assault
wwith a lethal weapon. Now, as for mental spells, I can see those as being
treated specially under the law, since there is no current list of crimes
covering mind control or probes; there laws are needed to regulate magical
abuse. And I can see spell formulae and teaching of spells being
regulated, and spells being illigal in that manner (i.e. teaching fireball
requires a permit, etc.).


>Possession or possession with intent, are difficult with spells. Just
>because you know the spell, doesn't mean you'll use it, it also doesn't
>help the courts to decide whether or not you know the spell, not without
>some serious mind probing that may result in permanent damage to the
>mage.

Actually it's just illegal to probe a suspect's mind: the fifth amendment
preventing self-incrimination.


>After all if the mage doesn't have any criminal intent, they won't mind
>dna typing and the other restrictions placed upon their art - will they?
>They won't mind being licenced, monitored and recorded - will they?

I can see a lot of complaints from mages upon being DNA typed by the gov't
(or anyone). It's an obvious link for ritual sorcery, everyone in 2050
should object to that if they don't have to. Singling certain citizens out
for this sort of record would be nigh unto discrimination, and wouldn't be
legal.

>They won't mind helping the corporations and government research
>establishments to understand magic, and they have no reason to hide do
>they? I mean, it's not as if criminal activities pay better is it?

I don't have anything in my apartment to hide, doesn't mean someone can
come in and search without a warrant. I like my privacy, they have no
right to search. Americans can be damned picky about their privacy and
their rights.

losthalo
Message no. 16
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:20:08 -0500
At 09:46 PM 11/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <6hySmhPgX3B@****.komet.teuto.de>, Tobias Berghoff
><Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE> writes
>>Well, if someone proofs you used a 'control thoughts' on him, you're
>>locked up until the eighth world begins. And Flamebomb might not be called
>>a combat spell, but just because hammer isn't called a weapon doesn't mean
>>I can kill you with it and get away.
>
>But a hammer (pistol, knife, whatever) can be detected. How do you
>"detect" a Mana Bolt spell?
>
>You can detect magical activity, but not the spells the person knows.
>And you can learn any spell in days given some Karma and the formula.
>
Sure, but you don't ban or control the hammer. Why, because it would be
impossible to ban or control all the things that can be used to kill and
hurt and maim. Some are easy, like guns. Some, like cars and spells are
hard. So, you have two choices. Either completely throw the constitution
out the window and monitor and track all mages, stamp them with more
controls than ex-cons, or accept the fact that they are capable of doing
damage (just like anyone with a blackbelt), and punish them when they do.

I'm not saying that it is unreasonable to outlaw or restrict formulae for
destructive spells, but it is unreasonable to completely monitor all
magically active. If they break the law, if they use such spells, then
take action.

--DT
Message no. 17
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:25:48 +0000
On 16 Nov 97, Paul J. Adam disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

<snippo>
> >Well, Urban Renewal would be an OK spell for a worker in the
> >Demolitions, Inc.
> >And spell permits would be a problem if you try to learn from a
> >licensed mage. But what about shamans, eh? They can say: "My totem
> >gave that to me". ;> Esp. if they learned the spell in an Astral
> >Quest...
>
> Which is why magicians in general are feared. They can learn _any_
> spell, regardless of limits on formulae.

Yep.

<snip>

> >Well, there's all that freedom stuff in the Constitution... And
> >monitoring and recording is infringing somebodys personal freedom.
>
> But then a mage is born with the means to remove other peoples'
> rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

So am I. I can kill people, for that matter, anyone can. I can also
f*ck somebody's life up, and he can do the same to mine, by, for
example, running me over with a cow... err... car.

The mage can do it much easier, though. Doesn't mean he's not human
and has no rights anymore.

> The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Tell
> that to the police when you carry an AK-47 into Times Square, even
> if it's slung and you make no move to fire it.

Good point.

> >I mean, it's not like all those "PGP freaks" are really Mafia and KGB
> >Agents, so why do they mind the government-provided encryption key
> >idea?
>
> Protecting your E-mail with PGP doesn't let you kill people with a
> glance and a thought.

But I can coordinate the action to put sarin in Tokyo's metro through
the 'net and the police won't crack my codes in time! It allows me to
transmit information on the channels through which I want to purchase
that military-grade plutonium for making a small nuke!
Jeez, it is _dangerous_.

And being a mage doesn't let you kill people with a glance and a
thought. You have to learn the spell first, sacrificing your time and
energy (Karma)...
The same can be said about martial arts, or shooting, or making a
spray with botuline. Only magic is faster.

> >And besides, all those permits mean squat to a SINless mage. He's
> >fragged when he gets caught chucking Manaballs left and right, true,
> >but so is his buddy with military-class reaction enhancing cyberware,
> >military-class armor and an assault rifle loaded with cop-killing
> >APDS bullets.
>
> >I mean, all this stuff can be used only for killing. They're both
> >fragged, so in that case your point is moot... Isn't it? ;P
>
> You've never played in Pete's games :)

Of course I didn't. (I did play some CP2020 games like that, though).

> I'm the "combat monster" in his current campaign. I have a Browning
> Ultra-Power and a (stolen) assault shotgun. The shotgun spends most
> of its time under the floorboards of my flat. My net cyberware
> consists of a datajack. I've fired a total of four shots in the
> entire campaign to date.

Hey, I bet it's lots of fun, however, it is not exactly "standard
Shadowrun level". I mean, to find out what's "standard SR level", I
just use the archetypes from the BBB as PCs...

<snip>
> Military-grade armour is incredibly obvious, an assault rifle is
> nearly as bad (I have a deactivated AK-47, and it is _not_ easily
> hidden) and these weapons will summon a sizeable police response.

Of course they will. That's the problem with being a runner. You will
attract a sizeable police response. Actually, since you're making a
run on corp territory, you'll prolly have more troubles with the corp
guards (Lone Star, unles contracted to, won't protect the corp in
question... It's not SPD.)

> Magic is equally destructive: so it will attract similar notice. A
> report of magic is enough to justify scrambling the SWAT teams onto
> a problem, with orders to shoot first and ask questions later. Not
> only unhealthy for the magician, but for his or her companions.

Agreed.
It's a professional risk for runners, and they have to live with
that...
(But everything depends on the campaign power level, of course)


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike; FIAWOL
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Dentists are not prejudiced - they hate everyone.
Message no. 18
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:36:08 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971116192139.006e6698@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>At 09:54 PM 11/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>But that answer the Why? question in this instance, how about others...
>>Exactly the reason why there must be legislation to cover the very
>>existence of mages. A way they can be continually and unfailingly
>>monitored and kept under control....
>
>read that, that IS NOT going to happen under any modern government, nor
>their 205x descendants. It's postively 1984.

What are the AAA regions of Bellevue like? They're areas where if you
"look wrong" you get asked to show ID and residence permit. You're not a
resident? Then we'll transport you to the edge of this jurisdiction,
sir. You're not welcome here. Leave. Now.

That's one reason they're so secure; the residents pay good money so
they don't have to look at non-residents cluttering their streets.

"Civil liberties" are a distant memory in the 2050s. You live in a
corporate residential area and are a corporate citizen: what rights do
you have? Exactly what the corporation decides to grant you, no more.
Don't like it? Fine. Leave. Be a SINless UCAS citizen in Redmond.

Gee, living by our rules doesn't seem too bad, does it?

Proles = SINless and blue-collar workers.
Outer Party = most white-collar staff
Inner Party = senior executives.

"1984" is a good idea of what life in a corporate facility is like.
Morning calisthenics (a healthy employee consumes fewer medical
resources). Dietary limits (low cholesterol means fewer expensive heart
attacks). Strictly constrained reading lists (because the Company
doesn't approve of unauthorised ideas).

>>Yes, but then if people want to own a firearm, they don't mind licencing
>>themselves and registering with the FBI and federal government and local
>>law enforcement, do they> After all, if they have no criminal intent,
>>then they would be more than happy to give over their personal
>>information.
>
>Owners of firearms give their names, they don't give the government a way
>to track them and strike them dead at any time. Big difference.

Owners of firearms can't kill someone a hundred yards away without their
firearms. A gun owner has to own a firearm, carry it to the place of
intended carnage, brandish it and fire it. A magician merely needs to
learn a spell.

>>If however, there were laws and legislation to cover mages and their use
>>of magic in a public area, in situations and in the eyes of the law,
>>then the courts of the land would have a better way of dealing with
>>mages, and with their activities. Ultimately forcing any unlicenced mage
>>into the depths of paranoia and darkness.

>Okay, why would the law be able to do nothing with the mage? If caught,
>they were the co-conspirators in a criminal act, right along with everyone
>else. They alsolikely carried illegal firearms. Beyond that, if they were
>observed using magic with malicious intent (say casting at corp sec or
>lonestar), that's resisting arrest, fellonius assault with a deadly weapon
>(magic), and a bunch of other crap. They go to jail for just as long.

So, there's no need to regulate firearms, because using them for
criminal purposes is already illegal?

Doesn't wash. I tried that argument. Still had mine confiscated.

A few high-profile cases where magicians committed unpleasant crimes
would lead to demands for strict regulation of magic. And in a
democracy, what the mob wants the mob tends to get.

>>Personal privacy does not enter the equation. The mage is a dangerous
>>weapon who might go off at any time.

>Saying the "mage is a dangerous person who might go off at any time" is a
>serious oversimplification. The mage is a person, they have power, it is
>possible they might abuse their power.

The gun owner is a person, he has a weapon, he might abuse that weapon.

Confiscate the weapon.

Happened to me and 57,000 other law-abiding citizens.

>Also, just because a mage isn't
>registered, no CAS/UCAS LoneStar subsidiary can assume guilt.

Ownership of a firearm without a permit's a criminal offence and allows
- for instance - further search of your vehicle/residence.

Being found to be an unlicenced magician would likely have similar
effect.

Not to mention the linkage over here: firearm = massive police response.
Magic = massive police response.


>I'm pretty
>sure the constitution still exists fairly intact. Besides, it isn't
>exactly easy to spot mages on sight (if they aren't throwing spells around).

Which makes them even more of a threat, no?

>In terms of a logical system of registration (instead of the paraniod one)
>take a present day example: upon receiving a black belt in a martial art in
>the US (or perhaps just LA/California, I'm not sure), you have to go to the
>local police station and register yourself as a deadly weapon. Period, no
>DNA typing, no implantation of microchips in the brain to track you. You
>are simply registered. Then, if you ever get in a fight, you are charged
>with assault with a deadly weapon unless you can prove self defense. End
>of story. Why should it be any more complicated for a mage?

Because a black belt has to walk up to someone and hit them. A magician
can snap his fingers a block away and his or her target drops dead. And
that's just the lethal arena, we've been around all the options for
fraud, robbery, assorted sexual crimes et cetera already.



--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 19
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:55:50 +0000
In article <199711170125.CAA14656@*****.onet.pl>, "Leszek Karlik, aka
Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL> writes
>On 16 Nov 97, Paul J. Adam disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
>writing:
>> But then a mage is born with the means to remove other peoples'
>> rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
>
>So am I. I can kill people, for that matter, anyone can. I can also
>f*ck somebody's life up, and he can do the same to mine, by, for
>example, running me over with a cow... err... car.

You need the car to do it; you have to screech down the sidewalk
splattering pedestrians in your wake.

A magician looks at a crowd, blinks, and boiling magical fire engulfs
scores of them. That scares people: random death from no visible source.

>The mage can do it much easier, though. Doesn't mean he's not human
>and has no rights anymore.

Nor does it mean he or she's immune to the consequences of their power.
Get spotted as an unregistered mage? That's a criminal offence. Hello,
jail, and forcible registration when you get released.

Be a registered magician? Endless visits from corporate and government
recruiters, plus assorted criminal factions. You are _valuable_. They
want you to work for _them_. Running the shadows is hard when so many
people are bidding for you.

>> Protecting your E-mail with PGP doesn't let you kill people with a
>> glance and a thought.
>
>But I can coordinate the action to put sarin in Tokyo's metro through
>the 'net and the police won't crack my codes in time! It allows me to
>transmit information on the channels through which I want to purchase
>that military-grade plutonium for making a small nuke!
>Jeez, it is _dangerous_.

Can you kill people by snapping your fingers because you encode your e-
mail with PGP? No?

It's a handy means of communication for ill intent, as well as for those
who honestly value their privacy. Hence, attempts to regulate it. Think
magic will be any different?

>And being a mage doesn't let you kill people with a glance and a
>thought. You have to learn the spell first, sacrificing your time and
>energy (Karma)...

Whoopie doo. Compare the cost of learning a Mana Bolt spell to learning
Firearms-5 or 6. The spell formula costs less than a decent SMG.

>The same can be said about martial arts, or shooting, or making a
>spray with botuline. Only magic is faster.

_Much_ faster and _much_ harder to detect and stop.

So it will scare the living shit out of many people, and they will
demand that the government, Lone Star, the corporations, anybody, DO
SOMETHING.

>> Military-grade armour is incredibly obvious, an assault rifle is
>> nearly as bad (I have a deactivated AK-47, and it is _not_ easily
>> hidden) and these weapons will summon a sizeable police response.
>
>Of course they will. That's the problem with being a runner. You will
>attract a sizeable police response. Actually, since you're making a
>run on corp territory, you'll prolly have more troubles with the corp
>guards (Lone Star, unles contracted to, won't protect the corp in
>question... It's not SPD.)

But a magician can throw Control Thoughts on the waiter at a restauraunt
- "We paid already" - and be out of the door before the spell drops.
Harmless? But that colours the staff of that place's opinions when
Proposition 937, demanding that all magicians be subject to registration
and made to wear obvious badges on their clothings (a huge yellow 'M',
perhaps?) comes to a vote.

After all, law-abiding magicians won't mind, it's only the few criminals
who'll object. Right?

Magicians have so much power to screw with people's minds, and it is so
hard to convict, that there _will_ be hate.


The woman claims she was raped. The defendant says she was begging for
it and was all over him. Witnesses testify that the alleged victim was
pawing lustfully at the defendant within moments of their meeting in a
bar, and performed an act of fellatio on him while he was sitting in a
corner booth.

Traces of magic were found, but the defendant claims he merely cast
Healthy Glow, Fashion and Makeover on the alleged victim after a night
of energetic passion, and further claims he knows no mind-control
spells. The prosecution admitted they had no proof that the accused knew
such spells, and that no sign of forcible intercourse existed.

Definite reasonable doubt there, don't you think? So the accused walks
away a free man. Again... for many people, that this happened to a
friend or that they watched this trial on TV is their only contact with
magic.

>> Magic is equally destructive: so it will attract similar notice. A
>> report of magic is enough to justify scrambling the SWAT teams onto
>> a problem, with orders to shoot first and ask questions later. Not
>> only unhealthy for the magician, but for his or her companions.
>
>Agreed.
>It's a professional risk for runners, and they have to live with
>that...
>(But everything depends on the campaign power level, of course)

This isn't just runners: this is day-to-day life. It applies elsewhere
too, such as to the wired. Read Tim Zahn's "Cobra" for a good example of
how "ordinary people" react to the significantly augmented.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 20
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:02:28 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971116202007.0074b780@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>At 09:46 PM 11/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>You can detect magical activity, but not the spells the person knows.
>>And you can learn any spell in days given some Karma and the formula.
>>
>Sure, but you don't ban or control the hammer. Why, because it would be
>impossible to ban or control all the things that can be used to kill and
>hurt and maim. Some are easy, like guns. Some, like cars and spells are
>hard. So, you have two choices. Either completely throw the constitution
>out the window and monitor and track all mages, stamp them with more
>controls than ex-cons, or accept the fact that they are capable of doing
>damage (just like anyone with a blackbelt), and punish them when they do.

Given the carnage a magician can achieve - with no need for explosives,
automatic weapons, poisons, rare bacteria et al - which do you really
think will be the case?

Can you buy Composition 4 explosive legally today, because "it would be
illegal to use it for criminal purposes"? Or is it as rare as hen's
teeth because the potential for misuse is so great?

Some people are born with magical talents. Poor them.

>I'm not saying that it is unreasonable to outlaw or restrict formulae for
>destructive spells, but it is unreasonable to completely monitor all
>magically active. If they break the law, if they use such spells, then
>take action.

Where's the equivalent of "revoke their firearm certificate" for a
magician? You're dealing with someone who can (actually or potentially)
kill with an eyeblink, and who cannot be deprived of that ability.
There's no real-world parallel.

And if I'm at threat from these people, I don't give a shit about their
civil rights, any more than the US cared about the right of Libyan
people to a good night's sleep in 1986 when the USAF and USN bombed
Benghazi, Sirte and Tripoli. If you're threatened, you react.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 21
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:30:32 +0000
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: 17 November 1997 01:02
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law


>At 03:51 PM 11/16/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>stating "I'm a Mage - please frag me first." Hence my reasoning,
>>give spells legality ratings. It works. However, I do add a
>>physically visible component to spells as well...
>
>How does one prove which spell was used in the commission of a crime?

Apparently, so I have been informed privately, the very act of casting a
spell leaves a signature against the normal background count, the mage
also leaves a signature as the caster of that spell, much as a bullet
has identifying marks that can tie it to an indivual weapon. I'm
checking on that at the moment... Though I've yet to find anything that
states this.


>Whereas, it would be far simpler to prove that a spell was used, and
>what it's effect was on the victim, and treat it like any other crime.
>Overstimulation counts as torture, manabolt as murder (or attempted
>murder), etc.

Yes, in the event of a crime having been committed it is easier for the
law to judge upon the results of the actions, rather than the methods,
However, as you state, this doesn't cover every potential use of magic.

>The law makes very little distinction now as to methods used
>for violence, aside from the distinction between mere assault and
>assault with a lethal weapon.

Actually it does. There is assault with a deadly weapon, but America
also has the "posession" and "intent" laws, which the UK does not.

In the US you can own something or have it on your person without
intention to use it - a lesser crime. You were forced to by the
situation. You shot the guy because he pulled a knife sort of thing. In
the UK, that disctinction doesn't exist. The courts here will look on
possession of a weapon _as_ intent to use. You wouldn't have it if you
weren't intending to use it... IE, the guy pulled the knife, "because"
you had a gun, and he thought he'd be able to get you first.


>Now, as for mental spells, I can see those as being treated specially
>under the law, since there is no current list of crimes covering mind
>control or probes; there laws are needed to regulate magical abuse.

As you state above, the problem is in proving that the spell was used
for this purpose.

OK. Most of my argument in this thread has been a tad pointless, I've
been playing devil's advocate and taking the contrary view. In reality
it would be very very hard to monitor spell use. However. Teachers and
lecturers are registered and qualified. Men who work with explosives
are registered, people who own firearms, in the main are registered,
apparently this might not be the case in all states of the US, though I
think it is. People in sensitive position are registered. Most
dentists or medical practitioners are registered, people working as
skilled labour in industry are registered (they own some sort of formal
government approved qualification). Psychiatrists are registered. Why
not mages. What is so unreasonable?

Surely "any" kind of registration and licencing is an infringement on
your consititutional right as a member of the US, yet people do it
without quibble, without arguing. Why? Because it makes their life in
society easier.


>And I can see spell formulae and teaching of spells being regulated,
>and spells being illigal in that manner (i.e. teaching fireball
>requires a permit, etc.).

The problem is, How do you get a permit to use a fireball spell. To
what possible "standard and beneficial" use could Fireball be put.

The incineration of diseased corpses in the barrens? Cooking the bodies
prior to conversion to Soylent Green? I can't honestly think of one,
not a serious reason, maybe someone else can.

>>some serious mind probing that may result in permanent damage to the
>>mage.
>
>Actually it's just illegal to probe a suspect's mind: the fifth
>amendment preventing self-incrimination.

Yes I noticed that after I re-read the section in the grimmy. That's
not to say that unscrupulous agencies wouldn't use it. After all, what
qualms does the Shadowrunner mage have in using it. From a few comments
I've caught on the list - none really.

>>After all if the mage doesn't have any criminal intent, they won't
>>mind dna typing and the other restrictions placed upon their art -
>>will they? They won't mind being licenced, monitored and recorded -
>>will they?
>
>I can see a lot of complaints from mages upon being DNA typed by the
>gov't (or anyone). It's an obvious link for ritual sorcery,

Yes, and a damned good reson to be one of the "good guys". Anyway,
seeing as magicians are a rare commodity, registration may get them into
areas where they can earn a decent wage working for somebody, rather
than running the shadows and risking instant death.

As a starving member of the barrens, without home or hope, what is more
attractive. Risking your life every day in the sake of food and a roof,
running the security free fire zones for a few bucks. Or registration,
an easy life working for acknowledged research/educational/government
establishments, food, money, and status?

The government can be trusted. The government is your friend. Trust in
the government. The government knows what is best for you.

>everyone in 2050 should object to that if they don't have to.
>Singling certain citizens out for this sort of record would be nigh
>unto discrimination, and wouldn't be legal.

It sounds a bit silly. But Why? If there is no criminal intent for the
use of magic, then what is wrong with registration?

>I don't have anything in my apartment to hide, doesn't mean someone can
>come in and search without a warrant. I like my privacy, they have no
>right to search.


Having your appartment invaded by people without a warrant, is a teeny
bit different to licencing and registering yourself as a deadly weapon.
Possibly earning more money, having a certain "respected" status, you
are a rare commodity as a mage, and therefore valuable, and meeting
others of your skill and inclination. Isn't it.

>Americans can be damned picky about their privacy and their rights.

Yeah, I've noticed. :) But that hasn't stopped the government from
screwing with them occassionally.

The government can be trusted. The government is your friend. Trust in
the government. The government knows what is best for you.
Message no. 22
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:02:07 +0000
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: 17 November 1997 00:26
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law


>>shirt over there by the stuffer shack? the chap in the business suit?
>>The woman over there walking her dog? Who??? There are no necessary
>>signs that would reveal a mage to anyone except an astrally perceiving
>>mage, and when you have a bunch of nutters with automatic weapons
>>attempting to turn you into a t-bag, it's unlikely that any mage with
>>any amount of common sense is going to go astral to find out if a mage
>>_might_ be in the area, and then try to identify the schmuck.
>>
>>You don't need to be close to chuck a fireball you only need to see
the
>>area. My long distance eyesight is pretty good, which means, from a
>>good height I can see for several miles.
>
>Two things:
>First, there ARE rules for spotting actual spellcasting. BBB, pg 132,
>NOTICING SPELLCASTING: TN = 2 * (Magic rating - Spell Force). It ain't
>always easy, but with a force 6 fireball, that is a TN of 2. Must be
>pretty obvious, eh? This is under the heading, as written above,
noticing
>spellCASTING, so I think that this means one can determine who the mage
is,
>he/she is the castor.

Only by another mage. If another mage is not present, or is otherwise
occupied bny the bullet chuckers, he's not going to spot it is he. Not
if the mage is distant.

>Second, there are rules for long range LOS spellcasting in the
>Grimoire. Use them if you are having problems with mage snipers firing
>spells from 2 miles away, I think they make a lot of sense.

>>Exactly the reason why there must be legislation to cover the very
>>existence of mages. A way they can be continually and unfailingly
>>monitored and kept under control....
>
>read that, that IS NOT going to happen under any modern government, nor
>their 205x descendants. It's postively 1984.

Wrong, it happened in the UK sourcebook, and exists, according to the
Grimmy in the middle east nations. Who knows where else. Not until
other sourcebooks arrive.

>
>Owners of firearms give their names, they don't give the government a
>way to track them and strike them dead at any time. Big difference.

Yes they do. Their address, location, employment and name, including in
this country anyway, two reliable witnesses/references. By that very
method, the government can track and kill them at any time

<snippy>
>>forward and stand in the eyes of the law and announce "I am a Mage, I
>>require registering and licencing."
>
>Okay, why would the law be able to do nothing with the mage? If
>caught, they were the co-conspirators in a criminal act, right along
>with everyone else.

Only if it is proved to be so. Again, where mages are able to do things
by thought alone, if you interpret the rules in that way, there is a
good chance that nobody saw them do anything. They were brought into
custody for association. But association is not proof in itself. Guilt
cannot be assessed by association. Only evidence can prove that. If
the person is registered as a mage, they are more likely to carefully
consider use of their art, if they are not, the liklihood is that magic
use, to deadly force is going to be more casual.

Without the same rules covering the use of firearms in the street the
mage, with an average lawyer, can walk free. The chap with the guns,
has forensic evidence from the weapon, itself, that condemns him.

>They alsolikely carried illegal firearms. Beyond that, if they were
>observed using magic with malicious intent (say casting at corp sec or
>lonestar), that's resisting arrest, fellonius assault with a deadly
>weapon (magic), and a bunch of other crap. They go to jail for just as
>long.

If caught and proved. Yes. But if the mage doesn't carry firarms? It
can't be proved he cast the spells, unless another mage was watching the
guy, and if he was amongst a group of people near the incident... who
the hell can tell. The mage walks, the sammy gets chopped. Most
players in my games, who have had mage characters, do not carry
firearms. That's what the combat monsters are for. If they're toasted,
and the mage is with the team in the attack, the chances are he's a
splat mark on the concrete as well. If the mage is hanging back, he can
get away, and nobody is any the wiser.

>>down, because the law has a list of active mages in the area, any who
>>aren't registered and are found, can be considered guilty. And in the
>>eyes of American law, that means you are guilty until you prove
>>innocence... :)
>
>Saying the "mage is a dangerous person who might go off at any time" is
>a serious oversimplification. The mage is a person, they have power,
>it is possible they might abuse their power. This does not make mages
>inherently unstable as you seem to be suggesting.

Oh dear. Now we're going into a contradictory argument over what was
said and not said, and lose the track of the whole thread.... <sigh>

Yes it was an oversimplification, but so was "mages are fully integrated
into society and socially accepted by all and sundry, and everyone and
their granny knows one". I don't think I said that all mages were
inherently unstable, but my remarks may have been misunderstood to have
implied that.

Yes my comment about psycho mages was simple, it's a feasible
plausibility based on the psycho gun nuts who occassionally shoot up
innocent civilians, schools and diners.

>Also, just because a mage isn't registered, no CAS/UCAS LoneStar
>subsidiary can assume guilt. I'm pretty sure the constitution still
>exists fairly intact. Besides, it isn't exactly easy to spot mages on
>sight (if they aren't throwing spells around).

Just because a person is caught carrying a firearm without licence
doesn't mean that the judicial system can assume guilt. The
constitution states that every citizen has the right to own and bear
arms, yet says nothing about licencing them. However, a person caught
with an unlicenced weapon is put under arrest and subjected to some
pretty intensive questioning.

Why aren't mages?


>privacy is always an issue in the former US.) The legislature simply
>needs to reflect the fact that using offensive magic is like using a
>deadly weapon, and prosecute as such. There is no attempt to "monitor
>and control" at all times owner of guns or practitioners of martial
>arts, so why the mage?

At any given moment of any given day. The local law enforcement agency
or FBI can call up the statistics on firearms owners, martial artists,
gunshops, whatever. They know precisely how much and what is in any
given area. This assist them in certain situations where a firearms
crime is committed with a registered weapon, when was it reported
stolen (if at all) what was done about it, all the details of the
owner. Etc.

In this country as well, Martial Artists are required to licence
themselves. This costs money on a yearly basis. At any given time, if
someone runs around Karate chopping people to death, the police can call
up a registry of all registered practitioners of the martial arts, and
question those in the area of the assaults to see if one has gone
"renegade" or decided that it's time for public involvement in crime and
punishment.

Why not mages?

>You also seem to imply that a registered mage can be proved not to have
>committed a crime from his DNA sample, I don't think forsenic magic
works like that.


No it doesn't, and I did state that it would help to prove his
innocence. How, I have no ida, I am not a forensic scientist. But
Shadowrun places a very high value on DNA samples, which is why the
suggestion was used. Also, in the UK sourcebook, mages are required to
give a DNA sample on registration. Why? I have no idea, but it has to
do with ritual magic in tracking them down in the event that they use
their skills for criminal purposes. Presumbaly it can be used to
confirm or deny a mages presence, samples taken at the scene of the
crime may or may not verify the presence of the mage. Samples taken
during a DNA sweep of the area of the "event", whether it be room,
street or wherever may prove the mages' guilt or innocence, Forensic
investigation of the background count and astral signiatures may be
sufficient. I don't know. But DNA plays a big part in the Shadowrun
concept of security and monitoring.

>The registered mage is just as likely to be the criminal and no one the
>wiser, so where is anything gained by having him typed?


With some government department owning his DNA there is a goodly chance,
that the department can hunt the guy down to within centimetres of his
current location. This is a serious deterrent to commiting crimes.

>If he is caught commiting the crime, then they already know who did it,
>so again, what benefit from DNA registration accept some seriously
>questionable government practices, treating all magically active like
criminals, and only a step shy of rounding them up and finding a final
solution, at least to the mind of most mages, and likely most
americans.

Why not, it was used as a re-election campaign promise by an American
president in Shadowrun.

>Your system of control would never happen in the present US, and I have
>a hard time believing it would take place in the 205x versions either.

Really? Are you so sure. There are already several laws brought in in
the US that severely restrict the abilities and freedom of the
individual. For example, the court battle last year concerning personal
privacy in a workplace. The individuals lost, and the corporation won.
Now, it is possible for any company in America to install and maintain
CCTV in the workplace to monitor the behaviour of their employees, and
what they say to each other. This includes the washroom, cubicles,
office or canteen. Anything a company employee says that is detrimental
to the company he/she works for is now liable for instant dismissal.
This battle was fought and won in the California courts, and set the
precedent for the rest of the US. I could probably come up with a
couple of other examples, but it's getting late here.

Never say never.

Aside from which, this is Shadowrun where restrictive legislation and
personal rights are infringed upon every day. Not RL where personal
rights are infringed upon every day. :)

The constitution states that it is everyone's right to own and bear
arms. So, why are firearms licenced? Why do you need to be a "stable"
member of society to own one? (read as no criminal record) Why? It is
your _right_ to own and carry a gun. But if you do, it's not likely
you'll get very far with it, and especially not if it's unlicenced.
Isn't that an infringement of your constitutional rights? So, how would
that be any different to licencing and registering a mage?

If the Mage has No Criminal Intent, he/she won't mind.


--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 23
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:09:06 -0500
> The constitution states that it is everyone's right to own and bear
> arms. So, why are firearms licenced? Why do you need to be a "stable"
> member of society to own one? (read as no criminal record) Why? It is
> your _right_ to own and carry a gun. But if you do, it's not likely
> you'll get very far with it, and especially not if it's unlicenced.
> Isn't that an infringement of your constitutional rights? So, how would
> that be any different to licencing and registering a mage?
>
> If the Mage has No Criminal Intent, he/she won't mind.
>
One does not choose to be a mage; one chooses to own a gun or learn a
martial art. Essentially by requiring mages to be 'registered', they are
relegated to a status slightly above chattel. Imagine telling a shaman
that he must register the gift of his totem with mundane
authorities...Think of the effect such legislation would have on the
relations of UCAS with other, magic-friendly nations?
Message no. 24
From: Danyel Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:49:50 +1300
So sayeth Avenger {16:31 17-11-97}:

<<<{CHOP}>>>

As a starving member of the barrens, without home or
hope, what is more attractive. Risking your life every day in the sake
of food and a roof, running the security free fire zones for a few
bucks. Or registration, an easy life working for acknowledged
research/educational/government establishments, food, money, and status?
The government can be trusted. The government is your
friend. Trust in the government. The government knows what is best for
you.
Sheesh, Avenger, you sound like a recruitment poster for Babylon Five's
Psi-Corps {OT: My favourite SF show}! And, if I read your post
correctly, this is what you were suggesting (and is virtually what
exists in 2050's UK, by all accounts). Given this sort of public outcry
and government action, magically actives would have three choices:
register and do what the government/Corps tells them, disappear into the
shadows, or simply 'disappear' ("Sorry, mate; nothing personal."
<>BLAM!<>). (Unfortunately for these individuals, the B-5 option of
taking talent-suppressive drugs does not appear to be open to them under
the Shadowrun rules. Perhaps someone cares to invent them? {GMs -
anyone who's read Neuromancer will get a nasty idea of the tricks the
corps could pull with these, let alone what the cops might get up to.})
Questions of the Constitutionality of such an agency and attitude I will
leave to the Americans on the list.

I wonder: has anyone actually implemented an organisation similar to
Psi-Corps in their campaign, for psychics or the magically active? {I
consider these to be different things, and to blazes with Awakenings,
which my group doesn't have anyway.} If so, how did it work out? Were
they villains, heroes (shyeah, right), or just another business,
providing an unusual (but often vital) service?


DANYEL WOODS
9604801@********.ac.nz
We apologise for the inconvenience.
Message no. 25
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:16:51 +0000
On 17 Nov 97 at 2:02, Avenger wrote:
> >Two things:
> >First, there ARE rules for spotting actual spellcasting. BBB, pg
> >132, NOTICING SPELLCASTING: TN = 2 * (Magic rating - Spell Force).
> >It ain't always easy, but with a force 6 fireball, that is a TN
> >of 2. Must be pretty obvious, eh? This is under the heading, as
> >written above, noticing spellCASTING, so I think that this means
> >one can determine who the mage is, he/she is the castor.
> Only by another mage. If another mage is not present, or is otherwise
> occupied bny the bullet chuckers, he's not going to spot it is he. Not
> if the mage is distant.
Possibly. If the magician is kilometers away. But... where in urban
territory do you get kilometers of un-interrupted LOS? No potetial
targ... err, civilians passing by, no advertisment signs, buildings,
trucks, passing helicopters or drag... (err... forget I said that)?

[snip - problems proving a magician is guilty]
> If the mage is hanging back, he can
> get away, and nobody is any the wiser.
If the magician is really hanging back wide enough not to be noticed,
chances are good he will not have direct LOS. Plus, if there's spell
use, the scene of crime will be investigated later by forensic
magicians. Which will eventually find the place the spells were cast
from. And notice the spell signature.

The magician better prays he _never_ _ever_ gets witnessed when casting
spells...

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | 'The only folks you |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | should trust are your |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | enemies, because you |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| know what they want.' |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | - Thumbs, Troll Samurai|
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary ----(N.Pollotta)-+
Message no. 26
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:16:51 +0000
On 17 Nov 97 at 3:30, Avenger wrote:
[snip]
> >How does one prove which spell was used in the commission of a crime?
>
> Apparently, so I have been informed privately, the very act of casting a
> spell leaves a signature against the normal background count, the mage
> also leaves a signature as the caster of that spell, much as a bullet
> has identifying marks that can tie it to an indivual weapon. I'm
> checking on that at the moment... Though I've yet to find anything that
> states this.

It's Awakenings, pp. 97-99. See especially p.97: "In theory, a magician
can learn another spellcaster's magical tradition and heritage, and
even how or where he was trained from his spell signature - a very
powerful bit of knowledge.", and later that page, "Because a
magician's spell signature represents the unique way he manipulates
astral energy on the physical plane, spells cast in astral space or
seen from astral space cannot reveal a spell-caster's signature. Only
magic users with the Sorcery Skill, including the sorcerer, shamanic
and elemental adepts, possess a spell signature."

Unfortunately, I was wrong to state casting spells would leave astral
traces: Awakenings, p. 98: ". The decision to observe the spell must
be made during the same combat turn as the casting. After that any
trace of the physical manipulation of magic through the caster is
gone."

[snip]
> The government can be trusted. The government is your friend. Trust in
> the government. The government knows what is best for you.
Been playing Paranoia lately, P... Avenger? *grin*

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | God is real |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| - |
| \___ __/ | | unless declared |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | integer. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | -- ??? |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 27
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:01:22 -0500
Avenger wrote:
> From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
> Date: 17 November 1997 00:26
> Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
> >Two things:
> >First, there ARE rules for spotting actual spellcasting. BBB, pg 132,
> >NOTICING SPELLCASTING: TN = 2 * (Magic rating - Spell Force). It =
ain't
> >always easy, but with a force 6 fireball, that is a TN of 2. Must be
> >pretty obvious, eh? This is under the heading, as written above,
> noticing
> >spellCASTING, so I think that this means one can determine who the =
mage
> is,
> >he/she is the castor.
>
> Only by another mage. If another mage is not present, or is otherwise
> occupied bny the bullet chuckers, he's not going to spot it is he. =
Not
> if the mage is distant.

Nope. Else there would be no mention of the -2 bonus the observer gets =
if he is a mage (later in the same paragraph). OTOH, perception =
modifiers apply...
--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 28
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:44:07 +0000
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117005746.24155A-100000@*****>, Jeremiah
Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU> writes
>One does not choose to be a mage; one chooses to own a gun or learn a
>martial art.

Immaterial. The magician possesses the power and can't get rid of it.
That they were born with it won't help their victims.

>Essentially by requiring mages to be 'registered', they are
>relegated to a status slightly above chattel. Imagine telling a shaman
>that he must register the gift of his totem with mundane
>authorities...Think of the effect such legislation would have on the
>relations of UCAS with other, magic-friendly nations?

Britain gets on pretty well with Tir Taingire, for instance, despite
requiring all magicians to register with the Lord Protector and supply
DNA samples. If it works in Britain, after every magical outrage there
will be cries for similar laws in the UCAS.

When was the last time there was a well-publicised mass shooting in the
US that wasn't followed by demands for tighter gun controls?

I'm not saying these calls will be successful. I've been arguing that
magic is feared and often distrusted by many, even most, citizens: that
there will be backlash against magical crime.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 29
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:05:06 -0500
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117005746.24155A-100000@*****>, Jeremiah
> Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU> writes
> >One does not choose to be a mage; one chooses to own a gun or learn a
> >martial art.
>
> Immaterial. The magician possesses the power and can't get rid of it.
> That they were born with it won't help their victims.
>
> >Essentially by requiring mages to be 'registered', they are
> >relegated to a status slightly above chattel. Imagine telling a shaman
> >that he must register the gift of his totem with mundane
> >authorities...Think of the effect such legislation would have on the
> >relations of UCAS with other, magic-friendly nations?
>
> Britain gets on pretty well with Tir Taingire, for instance, despite
> requiring all magicians to register with the Lord Protector and supply
> DNA samples. If it works in Britain, after every magical outrage there
> will be cries for similar laws in the UCAS.
>
> When was the last time there was a well-publicised mass shooting in the
> US that wasn't followed by demands for tighter gun controls?
>
> I'm not saying these calls will be successful.
Most won't even register outside the locale in which the shooting occured,
and guns are still prevalent in our society. News stands which stock gun
magazines are not firebombed, gun control legislation usually stalls, and
guns are still quite readily available.

>I've been arguing that
> magic is feared and often distrusted by many, even most, citizens: that
> there will be backlash against magical crime.
This is not supported by recent events in the SR world. The FASA website
gives a good glimpse of attempts to legislate magic under the section on
the Scott Comission investigating the Dunkelzahn assassination.
Message no. 30
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:07:06 +0000
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.971117185942.18285A-100000@*****>, Jeremiah
Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU> writes
>> When was the last time there was a well-publicised mass shooting in the
>> US that wasn't followed by demands for tighter gun controls?
>>
>> I'm not saying these calls will be successful.
>Most won't even register outside the locale in which the shooting occured,

Buy a SPAS-12, a AR-15, or one of a list of other "assault weapons" in
California. They aren't available? Because of populist legislation?

Go buy a weapon having a detachable magazine, flash hider, pistol grip
and bayonet lugs. You can't? Something called the Brady Bill banned
them?

Buy Black Talon hollowpoints. You can't? Because some maniac walked onto
a subway train in New York with a Ruger automatic and a bag of magazines
stuffed with Black Talons?

Buy a handgun with an eleven-round magazine. You can't? Because they
were legislated out of existence unless hugely stamped "LAW ENFORCEMENT
USE ONLY".

See what I mean? And this is in the US. I used to own a handgun. One
maniac shoots up a school. Now I don't shoot Practical Pistol any more.

>and guns are still prevalent in our society. News stands which stock gun
>magazines are not firebombed, gun control legislation usually stalls, and
>guns are still quite readily available.

Friends here owned 9mms and had Glock 17Ls with 17-round magazines (some
had the extended 33-round clips, but you couldn't holster that sensibly)

Can you buy those in the US today? No, because only criminals and law
enforcers want so many shots, and no private citizen needs more than ten
rounds in a handgun for personal use.

Over here you can't legally acquire any type of handgun. Shooting
magazines have disappeared from newsstands, or been relegated to sit
alongside the pornograpy on the top shelf.

Can a typical privatec citizen legally buy a handgun in New York City,
Chicago, Washington DC or Los Angeles today? No, you can't. So, for them
guns are not "freely available", they're barely available at all.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 31
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:17:47 -0500
Magic and firearms are not the same, or even comporable, so stop harping on
the UK's gun control laws.

To be able to kill with magic requires learning a spell. That means magic
theory, and sorcery to cast it. This means years of work and training.
This is the same situation with martial arts. In order to be dangerous,
you have to work for years to achieve the power. One would hope that
during that time, you also learn not to abuse it. Obviously, that isn't
always the case, but the fact still remains that to be dangerous requires
years of dedication, and can't just be picked up.

Guns, on the other hand, can be totally deadly without any training at all.
A 4 or 5 year old girl recently picked up her father's shotgun and blew
away a 5 year old boy who was teasing her. That can never happen with
magic.

A gun is a tool of destruction that can be used by anyone who can pick it up.
Magic is a skill requiring years of dedicated study before it can be used
to harm, or to heal. If you ban guns, the average person will have a much
harder time dealing death. If you ban magic, a limited number of people
will be restricted, but you will also restrict the pursuit of knowledge,
the ability to help and heal, etc. Big difference.

So, can we drop the gun=magic, or even worse, gun=mage comparisons?

--DT
Message no. 32
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:55:46 +0000
In article <m0xXTsK-0004wdC@*******.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>, Sascha
Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE> waffled & burbled about
Magic and the Law
<snippy>
>seen from astral space cannot reveal a spell-caster's signature. Only
>magic users with the Sorcery Skill, including the sorcerer, shamanic
>and elemental adepts, possess a spell signature."

Thanks Sascha, I've yet to get my copy of Awakenings back from one of my
players, but I assure you that section will be carefully read when I do.
:)

>Unfortunately, I was wrong to state casting spells would leave astral
>traces: Awakenings, p. 98: ". The decision to observe the spell must
>be made during the same combat turn as the casting. After that any
>trace of the physical manipulation of magic through the caster is
>gone."

We're all wrong occassionally. :) It's just rarer with you <g>

>> The government can be trusted. The government is your friend. Trust in
>> the government. The government knows what is best for you.
>Been playing Paranoia lately, P... Avenger? *grin*

LOL... Nope, Just Shadowrun

OH, and a couple ConspiracyX runs. :)

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 33
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:50:53 -0500
>
>OK. Most of my argument in this thread has been a tad pointless, I've
>been playing devil's advocate and taking the contrary view. In reality
>it would be very very hard to monitor spell use.

Cool, then lets all agree to make this more of a discussion, where we don't
push our points to the extreme in order to try to get them across.

However. Teachers and
>lecturers are registered and qualified. Men who work with explosives
>are registered, people who own firearms, in the main are registered,
>apparently this might not be the case in all states of the US, though I
>think it is. People in sensitive position are registered. Most
>dentists or medical practitioners are registered, people working as
>skilled labour in industry are registered (they own some sort of formal
>government approved qualification). Psychiatrists are registered. Why
>not mages. What is so unreasonable?

The purpose of registration for many of the above (medical especially) is
to insure the customer that some minimum of skill training is present, so
that they aren't about to be killed by some psycho who thinks he can cure
you with bloodletting or mercury. More than that, the original motivation
was a movement by doctors themselves to cut down on competition from
alternative healers who claimed to be just as effective without the time
consuming training in med school (I've studied some history of medicine so
I can really get into this if you _really_ want). For the others,
something dangerous is being handled, so there must be some assurance that
it is handled properly.
For mages, I have no problem with some degree of registration -- something
along the lines of you must register all mages who want to charge money for
healing or other magical services, or perhaps even to cast spells in
public. The registration involves your name, SIN, and maybe fingerprints
or retinal pattern -- for ID purposes, not for tracking and constant
monitoring. Of course, if a registered mage uses magic, it is assault with
a deadly weapon, in the absence of proof of self defense. If an
unregistered mage does, same exact deal, probably with a hefty fine on top.
Not too outrageous, but something.

>Surely "any" kind of registration and licencing is an infringement on
>your consititutional right as a member of the US, yet people do it
>without quibble, without arguing. Why? Because it makes their life in
>society easier.

Hell, as I wrote above, many professions chose the system themselves.

The rest, about people demanding safety from masses of mages running
rampant whether mages actually do.
Will they do it? Only if they can get away with it.
It seems that Paul especially handles magic in such a way that it is
all powerful and untraceable. The simple truth is that the use of magic
can be detected at the time of casting by a mundane. Further, spells don't
always work. Finally and most importantly, the use of magic leaves traces
that can be discovered (remember those forsenic magicians); traces that
both allow the determination of spell use (she claims rape, and evidence of
mind manipulation if picked up), and allow the identification of the
perpetrator.
If this is the case, and this is how I handle magic, then people have much
less to fear, because mages will never be able to run rampant. I agree
that in the absence of the above there would be much more to fear.

As a final note, I live in New Haven, which has recently been reported to
be the third most violent small city (pop 100,000 to 150,000) in the US.
When I walk down the street, I'm not afraid of mobsters, or professional
bank robbers, or martial artists. I'm afraid of some desparte homeless guy
strung out on crack who is going to decide that he needs his next fix bad
enough to kill me and take my shoes. I'm also worried about the kids who
grow up nearby without any real social control or consequences. I was
mugged by 3 kids right here two years ago. They had the gall to stop me
and try to get my money not 100 feet from my front door, in a well lighted
area, with an emergency phone within 25 feet that had a direct line to the
police. Hell, I wasn't even alone (nor would I charactorize myself or my
companion as tempting targets). Still, they did try. [The result was I
that I simply walked away. One tried to grab me (a detail the police
jumped on, but I shoook him off and left. I then called the cops, and they
were caught and convicted.] Why the hell were they stupid enough to do
that? I don't know, but it is that stupidity that I fear, imagine people
like that with firearms. Nope, magic is not to be feared nearly as much as
desperate, strung out, or dumb street types.

The simple fact is, someone with the ability to pursue magical talents to
the point that it would be a threat has much better things to do with his
or her time than bother joe public. Why throw away all their work and
dedication to spend the rest of their life in jail simply to feed the split
second urge to fireball some guy who cut in front of him in the atm line
(because there IS a chance they will be caught). How can they possibly be
able to pursue that training if they are so desperate as to want to mug
people? Sure, some deviants will exist, but magicaly police forces will be
able to stop them, or at least make enough of a show of it to keep people
feeling safe.

One final point: even if all mages are registered and DNA typed, short of
watching them 24-7-52, how does that stop them from going hog wild. Their
DNA is no more of a link to the magic they use than anything else. There
is no way to look at a victim of a mind control, and say DNA lot 3023405x5
was the castor. Or do you just ritual acid bomb all the samples you
possess just on the off chance that one of them was the perpetrator. The
control is in the punishment, and the punishment will happen either way.

--DT
Message no. 34
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:41:42 -0500
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, David Thompson wrote:

> >
> >OK. Most of my argument in this thread has been a tad pointless, I've
> >been playing devil's advocate and taking the contrary view. In reality
> >it would be very very hard to monitor spell use.
>
> Cool, then lets all agree to make this more of a discussion, where we don't
> push our points to the extreme in order to try to get them across.
Agreed. I think by now most people are familiar enough with each other's
views that little progress will be made. This goes for the 'Magic in
Society' thread that I started. Personally, I think the topic is still a
valid one, it just needs to be addressed ina constructive manner.

>
> However. Teachers and
> >lecturers are registered and qualified. Men who work with explosives
> >are registered, people who own firearms, in the main are registered,
> >apparently this might not be the case in all states of the US, though I
> >think it is. People in sensitive position are registered. Most
> >dentists or medical practitioners are registered, people working as
> >skilled labour in industry are registered (they own some sort of formal
> >government approved qualification). Psychiatrists are registered. Why
> >not mages. What is so unreasonable?
<snip>

The AAAT already exists as professional licensing board similar to the AMA
or Bar Association. Professional organizations like these provide an
effective tool to limit the behavior of their members, especially when
good standing in the group is necessary to find any employment. (Other
than ShadowRunning, organized crime, extortion, embezzelment, and all the
other means that have been brought up.)

> >Surely "any" kind of registration and licencing is an infringement on
> >your consititutional right as a member of the US, yet people do it
> >without quibble, without arguing. Why? Because it makes their life in
> >society easier.
Which Constitutional right? I would hope registering to vote is not
unconstitutional. :)

> Hell, as I wrote above, many professions chose the system themselves.
>
> The rest, about people demanding safety from masses of mages running
> rampant whether mages actually do.
> Will they do it? Only if they can get away with it.
> It seems that Paul especially handles magic in such a way that it is
> all powerful and untraceable. The simple truth is that the use of magic
> can be detected at the time of casting by a mundane. Further, spells don't
> always work. Finally and most importantly, the use of magic leaves traces
> that can be discovered (remember those forsenic magicians); traces that
> both allow the determination of spell use (she claims rape, and evidence of
> mind manipulation if picked up), and allow the identification of the
> perpetrator.
> If this is the case, and this is how I handle magic, then people have much
> less to fear, because mages will never be able to run rampant. I agree
> that in the absence of the above there would be much more to fear.


> As a final note, I live in New Haven, which has recently been reported to
> be the third most violent small city (pop 100,000 to 150,000) in the US.
> When I walk down the street, I'm not afraid of mobsters, or professional
> bank robbers, or martial artists. I'm afraid of some desparte homeless guy
> strung out on crack who is going to decide that he needs his next fix bad
> enough to kill me and take my shoes.
Or try and sell you flowers.
Message no. 35
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 02:51:22 +0000
(In reply to no particular post).

I will muse a bit around the theme of magic, society, and the law.
Bear with me and have patience.

The number of mages:
About 1% of the population on the whole is known to be magically
active. Keep in mind that magic is 30 years old, and manifests only
after puberty, which is around 12 years of age. Due to
limitations of selection and detection, let us say 15 years of
age for statistical purposes. Thus, only people between 15 and 42
years of age is magically active. This age group, assuming an average
maximum age of 80 years, is 33% of the population. Thus, 1 in 33
of this age group would be magically active, rather than the 1 in 100
of the full population. People between the age of 15 and 42 is by far
the most commonly encountered in today's streets. They are the
active, date - seeking, late - working, partying people. The rest is
either in school or in settled families. Thus this age group would
also be overrepresented in the street picture of Seattle. Assuming
about 60% of the people met is of this age group, then the ratio of
mages you meet would be about 1 in 50. Which also means that every
time you look at a fairly crowded street, there's a couple of mages
there. (I don't have a demographical survey handy for the real
numbers here, I'm afraid.).

The nature of magical groups is failry diverse. There exists more
than a few world domination fanatics (Black Lodge) or homicidal death
cults.. (Sacrifice geas) or the paid variety (Midnight Thorns). A few
of these would most likely be exposed. Like the internet today, it's
new, exciting, and all the news says about it is it's a free porn
trade network. Mages would, most likely, get a fairly bad reputation.
Both envy and fear would add to this. Mages might be revered for
their power to do good, but what a mob would know is based on fear,
envy, and the baser emotions.


Magic and information:
Libraries that contain magical libraries probably have books tagged.
(If you borrow 'Magic and the Art of Fiery Destruction, the police
might keep an eye on you, same way that they tag you today if you
borrow lots of nationalist/communist or terrorist stuff. (Gee, dunno
if they actually *DO* that, but that's from 'Seven', and doesn't
sound bad for a SR setting. :). As for shamans, they do not exist in
a vaccuum either, but they are harder to pin down. But they use
talismongers, for instance.

Magic as the Hated Aristocracy
Mages are, by all accounts, invaluable. Their value for a company,
wether in research, security, health, or all three, is huge. Their
salaries and privileges would be in proportion to this. This would
also add to envy, which leads to more hate. It's fairly
understandable - not only can that guy get the babe (or hunk) with a
snap of his(or her) fingers, he also gets paid ten times *your'*
salary for snapping his fingers. Add to that the fact that the
sinister bloke by the entrance that you saw fry a guy alive just by
looking at him makes you fairly queasy and nervous... it wouldn't
help that much that you also saw him save a guy that was shot in the
stomach - unless that guy was you. Envy and fear, again. Two of the
more prevalent motivations for violence known to man.

Magic and the police:
The police are fairly paranoid. If they were to arrest someone and
they susepcted he was a mage, or a mage was close, they would
consider it an armed and dangerous suspect and act accordingly.
Probably call for magical backup, or otherwise use narcojects first
and ask questions later. Carrying fetishes or similar would be
considered carrying weapons openly, and requiring permits -
carrying fetishes concealed, invisible and/or masked would be
considered carrying a concealed weapon, for which there is no
permits (Do not pass go. Do not collect 200. Go directly to jail.).
Magical backup would not have to be physically on the scene, by the
way. With a response time of 10-20 seconds max if available, the wait
for backup would be negligible. (And thus called for all the time and
spread thin, but ok.).

Magical presence in the police:
This is an interesting question. At least here, the police are well
educated people, which could get better paying, less risky jobs. They
like the sense they do something for society. (Or the respect and
authority, depending.). This sense shouldn't be assumed absent in
mages, and some would also work in the police. (It might be
considered absent in the police in 2058, though. Then that would
change...).


Magical detectability:
There is nothing nowehere that says a mage is easy to spot for
mundanes. Magical paraphernalia or stuff that looks magical might be
outlawed, (Same reason it is illegal to go around with realistic -
looking toy guns.), and requiring permits to transport. They would be
legal to own, and to use at home, even combat oriented ones, as long
as weapons are legal. There is no foci that helps healing spells,
which makes the argument that the foci could be used for good
purposes difficult. Confounding the problem further is that of
manipulations, which has some good uses, also has the worst uses.
Considering the nature of magic and its ties to image and symbolism,
magical items would, or should, not look like ordinary items.
Once a mage casts a spell, he is relatively easy to spot as the
origin of the spell. This is unless it is a spell like flame dart, or
other fairly potent and visible spell, which would be possible to
spot even if the casting itself wasn't visible. A powerfull mage,
highly initiated and with a power focus, would be able to cast subtle
spells unnoticed, though.

Proving ownership of spells:
This varies a lot. If you are, or have been, working within a
corporation, records of spells you have been required to know is
available. Also, there is a number of people that might know you.
If there is an appropriate fee, they might talk. Secondly, the courts
has means of making you talk.. truth spells or mechanical equivalents
far more sophisticated than today's machines might very well be used
against you. Lastly, you have a magical library of your own, or a
lodge. Analysis of this could evaluate the likelyhood of you having
learnt the appropriate spell. (If you research a magical spell from
your library, you take notes, right? And you don't destroy them
afterwards unless you are very paranoid and ready to redo a lot of
research later. If you downloaded the formula from the net, could not
a decker trace it? There's holes here, but plugging these holes is
often illegal in and of itself, and equally damning.).


So, what can I conclude so far?
Mages are not generally liked. Envy and hate will cause hate groups.
The police is wary of, but have means to handle, magic.
Magic, used publicly, is visible and illegal.
Magic is also provable and prosecutable in court.

The conclusion is that if you are a mage, keep your fireballis
strictly within the business.

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 36
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:12:21 +0000
On 18 Nov 97 at 2:51, Fade wrote:
[snip]
> Magical detectability: [...]
> There is no foci that helps healing spells,
> which makes the argument that the foci could be used for good
> purposes difficult.
Although I did not agree on everything you wrote so far, it was
interesting reading, and really worth a thought or three.

Unfortunately, here you are wrong: There's no (hermetic) elemental
that can AID SORCERY (as per rules on SRII, p. 141) for Health Spells,
but one can - at least according to SRII, p.137 - use foci to assist
Health Spells, as they are not banned in the definition.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | God is real |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| - |
| \___ __/ | | unless declared |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | integer. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | -- ??? |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 37
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:07:48 +0000
First, I've said I won't participate anymore... So sue me. ;P

On 18 Nov 97, Fade disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

<snip>
> and ask questions later. Carrying fetishes or similar would be
> considered carrying weapons openly, and requiring permits - carrying
> fetishes concealed, invisible and/or masked would be considered

Uhhh... Fetishes? I'd have to agree with you on foci, but fetishes?
How do you determine if something is a fetish? E.g. my character's
health fetish is his wedding ring - an object of great emotional
significance for him.
One can spot foci from Astral, but fetishes? Ewww...

<snip>
> long as weapons are legal. There is no foci that helps healing
> spells, which makes the argument that the foci could be used for

Whhhaaat? Of course there is. Power focus will help you cast healing
spells (that Blindness spell will benefit, too, as will the
Fireball). Specific spell category - I don't have the BBB, so I'm not
sure...
<snip>
> available. Also, there is a number of people that might know you. If
> there is an appropriate fee, they might talk. Secondly, the courts
> has means of making you talk.. truth spells or mechanical
> equivalents far more sophisticated than today's machines might very
> well be used against you. Lastly, you have a magical library of your
People talking - yes, but truth spells or mechanical equivalents are
an infringement of the Fifth Amendment. (It is even mentioned with
spells like Compel Truth).


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike; FIAWOL
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Toilet paper supplied by the Master of the Rolls.
Message no. 38
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:06:00 GMT
on 16.11.97 shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK wrote:
s> >Well, if someone proofs you used a 'control thoughts' on him, you're
s> >locked up until the eighth world begins. And Flamebomb might not be called
s> >a combat spell, but just because hammer isn't called a weapon doesn't mean
s> >I can kill you with it and get away.
s>
s> But a hammer (pistol, knife, whatever) can be detected. How do you
s> "detect" a Mana Bolt spell?

Try 'Awakenings'. There was something about magical fingerprints in there.


Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 39
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:23:09 -0500
At 02:51 AM 11/18/97 +0000, you wrote:

>
>
>So, what can I conclude so far?
>Mages are not generally liked. Envy and hate will cause hate groups.
>The police is wary of, but have means to handle, magic.
>Magic, used publicly, is visible and illegal.
>Magic is also provable and prosecutable in court.
>
>The conclusion is that if you are a mage, keep your fireballis
>strictly within the business.
>
I think this is a very good analysis. I would add one thing, however,
about the envy and fear of mages. The one thing that makes mages different
from most any group is that they can spring up anywhere. They aren't like
a race of people, who for the most part are only born of themselves.
Instead, magicaly active people are born in any and all population groups.
This means that while some people might fear and hate mages, every single
mage has two parents, neigbors, family and friends. As soon as their
powers manifest, they are obviously different from everybody else, and will
likely act that way. That means that some of the mundanes around them
might become envious and fearful, but others will not. It has to work
both ways.
One other point, as mages are not extremely common (1 in 50 of the street
population by Rune's rough calculation), there won't be that many cases of
people who are not already aquainted with the magical personally to come
into contact with the actual workings of magic. Why should so much hate
and fear exist, you can't identify a mage when he is walking down the
street unless he is obvious. I think at worst the majority of people with
no personal relation with magic or the magically active will be mistrustful
of magic, perhaps dislike it. I don't think many will be motivated to
hatred and violence unless they've had personal bad experiences.

--DT
Message no. 40
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:04:36 +0100
>Although I did not agree on everything you wrote so far, it was
>interesting reading, and really worth a thought or three.
It was meant to provoke thought, not agreement, so it succeded admirably. :)

>Unfortunately, here you are wrong: There's no (hermetic) elemental
>that can AID SORCERY (as per rules on SRII, p. 141) for Health Spells,
>but one can - at least according to SRII, p.137 - use foci to assist
>Health Spells, as they are not banned in the definition.
Ah, shit. Yeah. You're right. That's a house rule, I just forgot that it was.
Sorry for the confusion. (Including mine.. :)
Message no. 41
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:35:32 +0100
>> available. Also, there is a number of people that might know you. If
>> there is an appropriate fee, they might talk. Secondly, the courts
>> has means of making you talk.. truth spells or mechanical
>> equivalents far more sophisticated than today's machines might very
>> well be used against you. Lastly, you have a magical library of your
>People talking - yes, but truth spells or mechanical equivalents are
>an infringement of the Fifth Amendment. (It is even mentioned with
>spells like Compel Truth).

That was badly worded, I am afraid. I mean that they have ways of detecting
if you lie. Forcing them to speak is, of course, not an option. But the
jury will not ignore that someone refuses to answer certain questions while
being searched for truth or falsehood. The reason lie detectors are not
in common use is that they are not reliable enough - that is, now, on the
slide, and will most probably be quite ordinary by 2050.
Message no. 42
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:11:45 +0000
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.971118012719.25683C-100000@*****>, Jeremiah
Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU> writes
>The AAAT already exists as professional licensing board similar to the AMA
>or Bar Association. Professional organizations like these provide an
>effective tool to limit the behavior of their members, especially when
>good standing in the group is necessary to find any employment. (Other
>than ShadowRunning, organized crime, extortion, embezzelment, and all the
>other means that have been brought up.)

I'd suggest the AAAT would also be quite active in deploring criminal
use of magic, to the point of assisting investigations in bad cases.

Gives them more of a voice to speak with against the wilder "magic is
evil, ban it all" proposals.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 43
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:09:21 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971118004847.00738400@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>For mages, I have no problem with some degree of registration -- something
>along the lines of you must register all mages who want to charge money for
>healing or other magical services, or perhaps even to cast spells in
>public. The registration involves your name, SIN, and maybe fingerprints
>or retinal pattern -- for ID purposes, not for tracking and constant
>monitoring. Of course, if a registered mage uses magic, it is assault with
>a deadly weapon, in the absence of proof of self defense. If an
>unregistered mage does, same exact deal, probably with a hefty fine on top.
> Not too outrageous, but something.

We're not too far apart, then.

I'd say magicians would need to be registered regardless of whether or
not they intend to use their powers in public: they don't have the
option of taking the magic off and leaving it at home.

I'd also say the penalty for being an unregistered mage would be a heavy
fine and compulsory registration: for unregistered _use_ of magic,
imprisonment. (Same as unregistered carriage/use of firearms, for
instance), but that's my campaign as compared to yours.

(Apart from anything else, most legitimate-citizen mages would probably
want Medic-Alert bracelets warning paramedics of their status, so that
DocWagon is more cautious about slapping on trauma patches :) It would
be on your file with DocWagon next to your allergy to a certain
antibiotic, for instance. Not much of a step from that to letting the
cops know too)

>>Surely "any" kind of registration and licencing is an infringement on
>>your consititutional right as a member of the US, yet people do it
>>without quibble, without arguing. Why? Because it makes their life in
>>society easier.
>
>Hell, as I wrote above, many professions chose the system themselves.
>
>The rest, about people demanding safety from masses of mages running
>rampant whether mages actually do.
> Will they do it? Only if they can get away with it.

> It seems that Paul especially handles magic in such a way that it is
>all powerful and untraceable. The simple truth is that the use of magic
>can be detected at the time of casting by a mundane.

Though not automatically or easily. Again: someone casting a spell is
less obvious than someone firing a shotgun or hewing at bystanders with
an axe. Also, a spell can be cast from inside a building, from cover,
the caster can be invisible or concealed...

Magic isn't untraceable; but it isn't automatically spotted either.

>Further, spells don't
>always work.

Guns don't always hit their targets. Explosives don't always detonate as
intended.

>Finally and most importantly, the use of magic leaves traces
>that can be discovered (remember those forsenic magicians); traces that
>both allow the determination of spell use (she claims rape, and evidence of
>mind manipulation if picked up), and allow the identification of the
>perpetrator.

All other forms of crime leave forensic traces, and "spell signature"
only works if the act of casting was seen: not the aftermath. A forensic
mage could extract a fair amount of information from the crime scene,
but it doesn't identify the perpetrator.

>If this is the case, and this is how I handle magic, then people have much
>less to fear, because mages will never be able to run rampant.

So there's no firearm crime in your game either? Because if the above
keeps mages from crime, it'll stop anyone who depends on mundane means
of violence.

>Why the hell were they stupid enough to do
>that? I don't know, but it is that stupidity that I fear, imagine people
>like that with firearms. Nope, magic is not to be feared nearly as much as
>desperate, strung out, or dumb street types.

Now add in desperate, strung out or dumb magicians. What is there about
magicians that makes them immune to, for instance, drug or alcohol
abuse?

> The simple fact is, someone with the ability to pursue magical talents
>to
>the point that it would be a threat has much better things to do with his
>or her time than bother joe public.

Like FASA's wiz-kid mages?

>Why throw away all their work and
>dedication to spend the rest of their life in jail simply to feed the split
>second urge to fireball some guy who cut in front of him in the atm line
>(because there IS a chance they will be caught).

Saw on a US show - America's Dumbest Criminals, maybe - some US college
students who filmed themselves breaking into houses and smashing stuff
up. They thought it was hilarious. Why did they throw away their
promising careers just because they liked wrecking furniture?

Don't know, but they did. People are just dumb sometimes.

>One final point: even if all mages are registered and DNA typed, short of
>watching them 24-7-52, how does that stop them from going hog wild.

You can't buy a handgun in the UK... legally. So there is no more crime
committed with pistols. Riiiight.

Legislation like that isn't about logic or reason. It's about "Saving
the lives of our little ones!" It's a knee-jerk response.

Something must be done to protect the innocent. The proposed law is
something. Therefore it must be done.

>Their
>DNA is no more of a link to the magic they use than anything else. There
>is no way to look at a victim of a mind control, and say DNA lot 3023405x5
>was the castor. Or do you just ritual acid bomb all the samples you
>possess just on the off chance that one of them was the perpetrator. The
>control is in the punishment, and the punishment will happen either way.

It's more the leash effect: simplifies finding the perpetrator once he
or she's been identified by other means.

And it's a populist ploy: "Using these samples, Federal magicians can
track down any identified criminals within hours, allowing their prompt
arrest. They have other uses too: when registered magician Frederick
Watson, 72, went missing from his Alberta home, relatives were afraid
for his well-being. One phone call and a short ritual, and the
bewildered Mr Watson was found and returned to his home within forty-
eight hours!" is the pitch used to sell it as The Answer.

And it would have a deterrent effect on me, at least...

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 44
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:09:12 +0000
In article <6i1T$jkgX3B@****.komet.teuto.de>, Tobias Berghoff
<Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE> writes
>on 16.11.97 shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK wrote:
>s> But a hammer (pistol, knife, whatever) can be detected. How do you
>s> "detect" a Mana Bolt spell?
>
>Try 'Awakenings'. There was something about magical fingerprints in there.

You need to observe the spell while it's being cast... and after the
fact is a little late.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 45
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:45:17 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971118001747.007506f8@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>Magic and firearms are not the same, or even comporable, so stop harping on
>the UK's gun control laws.

They both kill.

>To be able to kill with magic requires learning a spell. That means magic
>theory, and sorcery to cast it. This means years of work and training.

Wiz-kid street mages? They're there in the books (Sprawl Sites, page
121) and he's got Fireball and Powerbolt, and the skill to use them.
Wiz-kid street gangs (rare but they exist) don't strike me as examples
of magic fostering a sense of responsibility and good behaviour.

>Guns, on the other hand, can be totally deadly without any training at all.
> A 4 or 5 year old girl recently picked up her father's shotgun and blew
>away a 5 year old boy who was teasing her. That can never happen with
>magic.

What about when a Wolf, Bear or Shark shaman goes bersek and throws the
biggest most vicious spell they know? No malicious intent.

What about magicians who aren't in full control of their talents? The
young, the untrained, the drunk?

Wake a sleeping magician who's having a nightmare. Ouch :)

>Magic is a skill requiring years of dedicated study before it can be used
>to harm, or to heal.

Not according to FASA: underage kids teach themselves magic and

>If you ban guns, the average person will have a much
>harder time dealing death. If you ban magic, a limited number of people
>will be restricted, but you will also restrict the pursuit of knowledge,
>the ability to help and heal, etc. Big difference.

You don't ban it and execute the practicioners. You do limit
availability of foci and fetishes, control talismongers the same way you
do gunsmiths (yes, a power focus can help a Heal spell, but combat spell
fetishes are only useful for hurting people), and require licencing of
magicians.

You won't ever be able to _ban_ magic. Controlling the practicioners is
the best that can be done.

>So, can we drop the gun=magic, or even worse, gun=mage comparisons?

Nope :)

Maniac with gun kills sixteen children, result ban on all guns.

Maniac with machete wounds a teacher and two children, and a headmaster
is stabbed and killed while intervening in a fight between his pupils.
Result, even tighter curbs on the carriage of knives, and legislation
forbidding the advertising of "combat knives", a term as ill-defined as
"assault weapon".

Maniac with combat spell kills children at a school: what happens?

The evidence suggests strong calls for a ban. On what? On offensive
magic. Curbs on combat spell materials (formulae and fetishes probably
controlled items). Curbs on magicians - compulsory registration, DNA
sampling (if we identify the magician, he can't escape punishment).

That's the mob mentality, and the fact that magic is an inherent ability
rather than something you pick up or set down is irrelevant to them.
Oppose the legislation proposed, and you face the cry "But if it saves
even one small child's life... You're saying that you won't fill in a
few forms and give a few drops of blood to save a child's life?"

You won't get all or even most of this, especially not in the UCAS. But
you can't stop Lone Star logging every purchase of hermetic libraries,
spell formulae, and other magical item that they can get access to, and
unwelcome attention paid to unregistered talismongers.

And you'll get anti-mage terror groups and vigilantes, who attack
talismongers, target those believed to be magicians, destroy magical
texts in libraries, and so on, all in the name of "protecting society".
Better try not to get on their list...


Magicians on the street should be a little paranoid :) Goes with the
power. People _are_ watching them, and not with friendly intent.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 46
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:57:27 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971118004847.00738400@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> waffled & burbled about Magic
and the Law

This is kinda long, so for those who don't like long
conversations/posts, don't read, page on to the next one.

>>OK. Most of my argument in this thread has been a tad pointless, I've
>>been playing devil's advocate and taking the contrary view. In reality
>>it would be very very hard to monitor spell use.
>
>Cool, then lets all agree to make this more of a discussion, where we don't
>push our points to the extreme in order to try to get them across.

No won't ;-P

I like extremes - well, sort of. :)

<Snip>
>>government approved qualification). Psychiatrists are registered. Why
>>not mages. What is so unreasonable?
>
>The purpose of registration for many of the above (medical especially) is
>to insure the customer that some minimum of skill training is present, so
>that they aren't about to be killed by some psycho who thinks he can cure
>you with bloodletting or mercury.

Uhuh. And the comparison with mages is invalid?

<snip>
>consuming training in med school (I've studied some history of medicine so
>I can really get into this if you _really_ want).

If you have the time, and the inclination, yes. I am always interested
in learning something new, but not on the list please.

>For the others,
>something dangerous is being handled, so there must be some assurance that
>it is handled properly.

And the comparison with mages is invalid?

>monitoring. Of course, if a registered mage uses magic, it is assault with
>a deadly weapon, in the absence of proof of self defense. If an
>unregistered mage does, same exact deal, probably with a hefty fine on top.
> Not too outrageous, but something.

Well. In answer to this you might want to read my other post on the
subject. I found some interesting things in the Lone Star Sourcebook,
which I'll not repeat here.

>Hell, as I wrote above, many professions chose the system themselves.

And the comparison with mages is invalid?

Hey... I've said that already haven't I? Hmmm...

>The rest, about people demanding safety from masses of mages running
>rampant whether mages actually do.

Not masses of mages running rampant.

It only takes one.

The comparison, although you seem to hate it, can only be made with the
next most dangerous article available to Shadowrun. Firearms.

It took _one_ man to get all semiauto rifles and full auto
rifles/shotguns banned in the UK.

It took _one_ man to get _all_ pistols from .22 up banned in the UK

It has taken slightly more than that to produce some pretty strict
legislation in the US. Legislation that gets slowly tightened every
year.

What is so different about mages? It only takes a few to go apeshit,
and there _will_ be public outcry.

> Will they do it? Only if they can get away with it.

OK, that's reasonable. But. And this is part of the reason I started
the debate, and it wasn't to air my personal hatred of magic. If I
hated magic, I'd play something else.

Over the last couple of years, there has been a tremendous amount of
posts regarding mages who are "too powerful" <tm> They take over games,
casting high end killing spells. One of the favourite questions here is
"How do I deal with the mage" "What should I do"... And the response
is
invariably, as has been used in this argument.

Call in SWAT
Hit him with more powerful mages
Use a military team.
Give the sec team a tac nuke (OK maybe not that but...)

You see my point yet? Magic is incredibly powerful in Shadowrun,
incredibly powerful, and yet did not (until I found it in the LS book)
have anything to regulate it. My and by association your argument
through this thread have, in all essence, been invalidated by that book.

The reason I started this was to introduce the concept of magical
registration. A way of forcing players, by legal and moral statutes to
think before casting hellblast in main street.

One assumption that has been made, and one that particularly irritates
me, is that although the game is based primarily in Seattle, many people
make the remark - "Yeah, but there is no one else by this top secret
research lab in the middle of nowhere."

All of the modules, bar a couple are based _in_ a city. The game itself
is Urban in nature or - IN a city. Where there are witnesses, people to
terrify, people to see. But nowhere in the rules does it state, that a
mage has a physical "manifestation" for casting spells. Only another
mage, if there happens to be one, will notice, and then only if he makes
the perception test at the time of casting (Page 98 Awakenings) (Hence
my and Pauls remarks about "kill with a thought" which seems to have
misinterpreted)

Awakenings, p. 98: ". The decision to observe the spell must
be made during the same combat turn as the casting. After that any
trace of the physical manipulation of magic through the caster is
gone."

When you're dodging bullets, it's difficult to stop and concentrate and
look carefully at people and notice something that might be incoming.
What are the chances of you looking out of the window of your house, at
exactly the moment a car crashes in the street?

It states in six of the 74 sourcebooks I referenced (the six that is -
so far) during this discussion that Magically active people are
_extremely_ rare. And that includes those who don't even know they're
active. I have such a problem, with teams of mages running around
taking the control of a game away from the GM, and the GM having to
resort to "extreme measures" to handle it.

It shouldn't need to be like that. Now this is, of course, due as much
to the GM as the players. but I've spoken to GMs who are so scared of
losing their players and ending up without a game, they will buckle
under pressure from players. I don't back down. As two of my players
will confirm. Even to the point of asking one to leave the game two
years ago. He's just rejoined us and is on "probation".

> It seems that Paul especially handles magic in such a way that it is
>all powerful and untraceable.

Actually, no he doesn't. Paul is as tight and hard on magicians as I
am. We don't make the character class unplayable, but we make it as
hard as it is for the others, and add in "responsibility".

Think about it. A mage can carry a hellblast, fireball, mana ball in
memory. Once he's learned it it's always there, ready for instant use.

Yet, the sammy can't carry his assault rifle/mg/cannon around ready for
instant use 24 hours a day. Nobody can wear a full length armoured
duster in mid summer, nobody. Also, if you've ever tried carrying a
weapon like an AR for any length of time, you'll know they're damned
heavy, carry that in a concealed fashion, and you whole way of moving
becomes more strained, and more tiring. So, how do you compensate for
that? Make the spell visible. Give it a legality rating. Make sure
there are "direct" consequences to casting. Not just a "possibility"
of
being spotted.

>The simple truth is that the use of magic
>can be detected at the time of casting by a mundane.

Can it? That's not how I see the rules. It doesn't state anywhere that
I can find so far, that there is a "visible" trace of magic around the
caster - that's an assumption some people make, and one I enforce in the
game. How does a mundane notice astral energy being concentrated - it's
invisible. There is no trail from the mage to the point of impact,
which means the mundane has to spot the caster preparing - ie pulling a
bone out of his pocket, or rubbing an ear ring, or as I've seen
mentioned on the list, a wedding ring. Once the spell is cast, it's
gone. How many people do you know fiddle with their fingers? I know a
lot.

>Further, spells don't
>always work.

Yes. That's true. They all have a target number, which like other
things is variable. The target gets a willpower test to resist it,
which is also variable. So you are correct, but that was not the point
of my, or Pauls comments. It's not that the direct target gets a chance
to survive, it's over the "reaction" to magic, and the fact that it
seems the general attitude is to play the game at a higher power level
than that indicated by the core rules. Magic is rare, magically aware
are rare. It will be a couple thousand years before Shadowrun magic is
at a comparable power level to EarthDawn (it's predecessor). Magic is
different in Shadowrun, as it should be. But... it's RARE That means
that mages are similar to an endangered species. You might see them on
TV, but the majority of people won't ever have seen one for real. How
many people on this list have seen a real live sperm whale, or watched
Orca in the wild, or seen a great white in the flesh so to speak, rather
than on some TV show? Or a Siberian Tiger... How many people in the US
have seen the Ocean? Aside from on TV. Yet the ocean covers 78 percent
of the world's surface.

I know the argument is pointless, I was aware of that from the
beginning. But it needed to be said.

I play my games one way, you play another way, and others play
differently again. The discussion we've been having in this thread is
from yours, my, Paul's and Jeremiahs points of view regarding the way we
run or play Shadowrun. I will never change my mind, until FASA publish
a book that states Magic is everywhere and everyone knows a mage - or
words to that effect.

Magic is a major part of Shadowrun, and in that, an important part of
the game, and when used correctly, a very interesting and entertaining
extension of the cyberpunk genre. It just strikes me, from two years on
this list, that magic is abused horribly.

So, after previous rants on other subjects, I decided to do something I
usually avoid like the plague, discuss magic. You may have noticed I
don't get into "rules" debates normally, and I don't think I've ever
posted into a "magic debate" rules or otherwise. Sometimes, one has
just got to let go. :) And that's part of the reason, I backed out. No
point in arguing the "you or I or Paul or Jeremiah are wrong". None of
us are, not really. It's how we see the World, and how we see the
Shadowrun world. But it was interesting, it was fun, and I left before
it got argumentative, belligerent and insulting. No point in insults
and flames, that achieves nothing, and any debate of length "will" go
that way.

>Finally and most importantly, the use of magic leaves traces
>that can be discovered (remember those forsenic magicians); traces that
>both allow the determination of spell use (she claims rape, and evidence of
>mind manipulation if picked up), and allow the identification of the
>perpetrator.

It takes a great deal of psychological study and analysis to detect
hypnotism today. Mind Control by magical manipulation? Will the
witness allow herself to succumb to what is likely to be an intensive,
unpleasant, traumatising and long study.

Also, read the section in the Lone Star Sourcebook regarding forensic
investigations. You might be interested to know, that forensics do not
investigate magical crime scenes. It has to be determined that magic
was used first. This is hard under normal circumstances. But in a city
of millions, where there is teeming life to obscure the small traces
left by anything except the most powerful magics?

Followed by the section on the Department of Paranormal Investigations.

Yes it's possible to detect magic after it's been used, but it's damned
difficult, and if you add into that the comment from p98 Awakenings
"After that any trace of the physical manipulation of magic
through the caster is gone."

Not good is it.

>strung out on crack who is going to decide that he needs his next fix bad
>enough to kill me and take my shoes.

On that note. A child in the Barrens, whose mother is strung out on
some cheap chemical becuase she can't afford SimSense (like today), that
child was addicted at birth, and has a nasty habit. He's lucky enough
to reach puberty, and expresses into a full mage, he has no skill, but
he has power. He watches a trid show and sees what they can do, and one
day, he just does it... He does it again later, to rob someone to feed
his mother's, his, ot both habits. And again... Until one day a cop guns
him down after an intensive man hunt for a renegade mage. Now, that
might not make national news, but it will make local, depending on how
much damage he's done, and to whom. There is little money in the
barrens, so he moves into the central city at night to get his cred...

Don't give me that research stuff... How did the first mage cast a spell
- Probably by accident.


>I'm also worried about the kids who
>grow up nearby without any real social control or consequences.

The barrens. Puyallup, Redmond, Renton... Thousands of people,
squatters, junkies, chipheads and raggers, drunks and psychos, and poor
people trying to get by. Mages in the barrens? Probably. Socially
conscious or jealous of the rich cats in Bellevue? Probably. OUt for
vengeance, or moralistic human. Yes/no/maybe.. Who the hell can tell.

<snip sad account>
>that? I don't know, but it is that stupidity that I fear, imagine people
>like that with firearms. Nope, magic is not to be feared nearly as much as
>desperate, strung out, or dumb street types.

I've had a similar experience, but it worked out differently, I ended up
with a police record because the thugs ended up in the casualty ward
and one in intensive care.

Unless magic gets into the desperate strung out or dumb street types.
There are all sorts of sides to society. Not all are pleasant, not all
are socially responsible or aware people. Mages also fit this category.
In general, I feel that fear would be an overriding concern with the
public. Magic isn't predictable, You can't tell who's got it, who's
going to get it just by looking at them.

As you say, imagine the fear with firearms. Well, imagine the fear with
magic.

I apologise for some of the comments I've made in this thread, because
they'e been very generalised, and no not all majors are psycho killer
types. But... It only takes a few headliners, a few trid reports on a
case, and Wham! Problems. For example (and I hate to mention this, but
it fits) The recent "British Nanny" case. Look how that has created
international outcry and demands for resolution. One case, televised
had the power to take control of the emotions of millions of people
across the world. Think about that, and relate it to Magic, and one,
just ONE pyshco killer nutcase mage, who roasts a kindergarten.
Extrapolate modern television to the Matrix and TriD...

>or her time than bother joe public. Why throw away all their work and
>dedication to spend the rest of their life in jail simply to feed the split
>second urge to fireball some guy who cut in front of him in the atm line
>(because there IS a chance they will be caught).

Now this has been one of my points. And I do agree with you. But, if
the mage doesn't know of these organisations, or, dosen't know how to
contact one, or... Can't for whatever reason. Maybe he knows someone
who was badly treated by a corporation, maybe he knows someone who was
killed by a corporation, and by association doesn't trust any of them,
he's got to make a living. he's got this ability... It is this type
that I feel make the Shadowrunner population of mages. A worse than rare
type - a unique person.

No mage works Shadowruns, when he can earn enough money to live like a
lord working for Ares, Mitsuhama, Renraku, Fuchi, whatever. No mage.

Combat monsters don't get paid so much, they're only cannon fodder for
the sec-teams, but mages. They are, as stated in the Grimoire, a
_VALUABLE_ and much sought after commodity.

Leaving only the socially unacceptable, or down at hells ignorant, or
the nutters, free and roaming the streets to bother the public.

Why do thugs mug people? Why do people rape women? Why do people kill
each other? Why do they steal, murder, rob, pillage... destroy?

I don't know, but it happens.

And in 2058, that situation is even more pronounced, with sectors of the
cities containing the rich and well off, corporate housing projects
holding the blue collar labourforce, and massive sprawling lawless
disease and filth riddled ghettos holding the lower class of society.
Is this likely to colour a persons view of the world? Probably. If
that person expresses into a mage, shaman, sorceror, whatever, and they
remember starving in the streets while across the razor wire, a family
ate in comfort... eating, real food, real meat, drinking clean water...
Is this likely to result in a poor reaction, an "I'm going to get my own
back one day" attitude.. Maybe, maybe not.

Take today's social problems, add in new races, new classes, new forms
of poverty and wealth. Blow it totally out of sensible proportion, and
you have Shadowrun, or Cyberpunk, or their clones. Today the US,
Europe, and the UK, has a terrible problem with racially motivated
attacks and violence. A terrible problem with gun related crimes,
(robberies, drive by shootings, road rage, whatever) Now, add into that
melting pot - Magic.

Oh wow.

It seems only reasonable to me, that there would be instantaneous and
unequivocable action to control mages. According to the Lone Star
sourcebook, there was, and is. But... Nowhere does it say that mages
are everywhere, and everyone knows one or knows someone who does. Not
by logic, not by the sourcebooks, not by common sense. Magic is rare,
that is repeated like a mantra throughout the Shadowrun sourcebooks.

It's dangerous, very dangerous. Look at what some of the spells can do.
I was suggesting that there should be a legality rating for spells and
things like that. There are charges per power level, certain spells are
restricted, but there is no guideline for GMs as there is with
cyberware, bioware, firearms, cyberdecks etc. At least, I've not found
one yet.

>How can they possibly be
>able to pursue that training if they are so desperate as to want to mug
>people? Sure, some deviants will exist, but magicaly police forces will be
>able to stop them, or at least make enough of a show of it to keep people
>feeling safe.

The magical arms of the Police Forces, are woefully undermanned. Magic
and Mages are rare. Lone Stars' Paranormal Investigations Division is
small, very small. They don't have vast patrols of mages patrolling
astral space waiting for a bad guy mage to cast a spell, they have to
wait "on hostpital beds" (quoted from the book) for an officer on patrol
to call in a "99" - magic in use distress call. Then these two, or
three mages go forth and try to achieve something.


Question. Seeing as Shadowrunners are effectively unSINed and are - for
want of a better word - outcasts from society - let's face it,
Shadowrunning doesn't pay enough for what happens - although I've seen
some incredible numbers bandied about here on the list. Why would a mage
work the Shadows?

The last three runs my players have taken was to deliver a box to
somewhere else 500 (overall, not each). Second delivery, a bit more
involved, they got shot at, their contact was detroyed in an explosion,
and a police man is hunting them... 3,000 (overall, not each)

Why are the characters running? Because they can't do anything else.
They are, by their own making, social outcasts. They can't get anything
better than Pizza delivery, club bouncer or motorcycle courier. BUt why
would a mage do this? He/she can earn thousands just by reporting to
receptionj at Aztechnology.

I like keeping my players hungry, and yes, there is a mage on the team.
No he's not initiated. Why not? Well, aside from the fact that they
are based in FASA's fascist regime that is the UK...

Question. Why is it that in nearly every game I've seen, nearly every
mage character I've read about on the list and elsewhere, the mage is
always initiated. How did this happen? How is it, that a SINless
individual with no personal history of no fixed abode, was instantly
accepted by a magical group, a - by it's own definition - paranoid
magical group, gains entry, intiates and becomes a fully fledged member,
without some serious hard work to prove themselves, and without becoming
a "normal member of society".

How many magical groups are going to allow one of their members to run
the streets vapourising seurity guards, and all the other things that
happen on Shadowruns? Anything that happens to the mage, or that the
mage does, directly reflects back upon their group. And they also become
targets and victims.

Initiation, as far as I'm concerned, means the mage must get SIN'ed,
he/she _will_ become a member of that group when that group is satisfied
they can be trusted with such power and responisbility, "may" be allowed
to initiate.

That of course is assuming that the character can find a group to
initiate with in the first place.

In a thousand or two thousnd years of game time, I will change the way I
do things, by then there won't be any humans left in the world and
everything will be magic. <that was sarcasm by the way> Until then. I
like the way FASA dealt with Shadowrun magic. It's rare. And in my
games, it's damned rare, and the people are afraid of it. And I rather
like the "buy a licence" logic from Lone Star Sourcebook.

>One final point: even if all mages are registered and DNA typed, short of
>watching them 24-7-52, how does that stop them from going hog wild.

It's OK, I'm not going to push the DNA stuff. It is as you well know,
and you know I know, impossible to enforce. It was an extreme
suggestion designed to attract a more reasonable and less extreme
suggestion. Unfortunately it didn't work :) Sue me. :-P

However, why is it that FASA allowed DNA typing as mandatory for the
London sourcebook? Especially seeing as it's so utterly pointless.

FEAR FACTOR? They've got a ritual link to you. You'd better behave. If
the government abuse this, then they _will_ pay for it. Magically
capable people might be rare, but if you piss them off they are a
powerful force.

As I've said before

The government can be trusted. The government is your friend. Trust in
the government. The government knows what is best for you.

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 47
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:54:42 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971118132306.006ecad8@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> waffled & burbled about Magic
and the Law
>>The conclusion is that if you are a mage, keep your fireballis
>>strictly within the business.
>>
>I think this is a very good analysis.

Agreed, it is a good analysis, and nicely written.

>Instead, magicaly active people are born in any and all population groups.
>This means that while some people might fear and hate mages, every single
>mage has two parents, neigbors, family and friends.

Two parents, friends, neighbours??? What about the people born today of
a single mother in the ghettos, who no nothing except the gangs they
grow up with... Are you saying that a mage will never be born here?
Look at modern day housing projects and high rise apartments. How many
people do you honestly believe know their neighbours? And how many lock
themselves behind shuttered doors never speaking to anyone, becuase
they're frightened, private, or simply don't know how to meet people.
Real Life is not "Cheers" or BEverly Hills 90210, where everybody and
their brother/sister knows everybody else.

England, as I'm sure you are aware is very small compared to the US.
It's smaller than Oregon. Yet is heavily populated. We have, eight and
twelve storey blocks of flats, two bedroom apartments... In many of
these places, the people living in them do not associate with their
neighbours, because they're scared of the gangs that roam the grounds,
stairwells and elevators. People who do not have friends in the near
neighbourhood, and haven't seen their parents in a long time. A legacy
from the 1970's labour government that is slowly coming to an end.
These apartment blocks are effectively lawless free fire zones.

Not everything is like your small town one stop-light Bob knows Bill who
knows Graham life. Shadowrun is by it's own description a more
alienanted situation that modern day. Take New Yorks Harlem, or some
other area you may be familiar with and turn a whole city into that.
What else is Redmond or Puyallup? Downtown is today's Seattle, yet in
Shadowrun is surrounded by massive lawless ghettos. How many people in
Redmond or Puyallup, or for that matter Tacoma or Downtown associate
with people outside of their workplace or circle?

By your definition above, everybody is friendly, and there are loads of
people who know each other and are "buddies". I only know one person in
my street. My neighbour.. that's it. I have no idea who the rest are,
what they do for a living, or whether they're even normal people. I
have a suspicion about a couple of them.

My street is three hundred yards long. Not several blocks, or miles as
is usual in the US. Outside of my street, I have a very limited number
of people I consider "friends", people outside of that are people I may
be on nodding or whatever acquaintance. I only have one surviving
relation in this country. Though I have several in Germany, I haven't
seen them in 24 years. Just before I left high school.

<quote>
> every single
>mage has two parents, neigbors, family and friends.

Really? That's a naive view of the world.

>As soon as their
>powers manifest, they are obviously different from everybody else, and will
>likely act that way. That means that some of the mundanes around them
>might become envious and fearful, but others will not. It has to work
>both ways.

Yes, I agree it does work both ways. Not all mages are going to be
hated because of what they are. But they will be feared, even by their
own family. Because they can do something the others can't... Something
amazing, and incredibly dangerous. "Hey we've seen Dan Kraate the
Vigilante Mage" on that trid show "DEAD DAWN" ... Association is not
necessarily truth, but it is still there. Even the wondrous mage's
parents are going to be worried, and a little fearfull. They've seen
what mages can do - look at Chicago. Look what happened to the
President. Look what happened to Mt St Helens. We'd better get him/her
registered and talk to our doctor, maybe he knows some school specially
for him/her.

> One other point, as mages are not extremely common (1 in 50 of the
>street
>population by Rune's rough calculation),

I would actually argue Rune's calculations. They are wildly inaccurate
by FASA's own listings.

>there won't be that many cases of
>people who are not already aquainted with the magical personally to come
>into contact with the actual workings of magic.

OK, I'm only going to say one thing here.

READ THE SOURCEBOOKS. They state... MAGIC IS RARE! The majority of the
population will _never_ have seen a mage, let alone real magic. Their
only contact with it is on the TRID!

Grimoire. Grimoire 2nd Ed. Shadowrun Sourcebook BBB 2nd Ed.
Awakenings. Shadowrun Companion. Lone Star Sourcebook. Meo Anarchist
Guide to Real Life. Shadowrun 1st Ed Blue Book.

Need I go on?

>Why should so much hate
>and fear exist, you can't identify a mage when he is walking down the
>street unless he is obvious. I think at worst the majority of people with
>no personal relation with magic or the magically active will be mistrustful
>of magic, perhaps dislike it. I don't think many will be motivated to
>hatred and violence unless they've had personal bad experiences.

Like people aren't motivated by fear and hatred towards those of a
different colour, or sexual inclination, or political belief or
religious belief?

Think about it, please.

Magic is only another newer strange thing Is a female who can cast
spells, a Mage... Or a WITCH!... Remember the Witch Hunts? That was
from religious belief, paranoia, and fear of the unknown. Persecution
of magic in Shadowrun would not be a novelty, it would not be strange,
it would be based on historical fact.

Magic is associated by many with Witchcraft and Demonology, Satanism
etc. Are attitudes really going to change as quickly as you say? They
haven't changed for a few centuries in Real Life, Shadowrun, although a
fantasy game, has a massive amount of elements taken from Real Life <tm>
And it's been 40 years, not centuries.

Remember the racial riots when Orks and elves expressed. Remember the
"final solution" offered by the President of the UCAS? Remember the
results of VITAS, UGE, The Crash, The Great Ghost Dance, etc.

Remember the riots in Los Angeles during the trial of a certain
gentleman. Did the people do that for fun? Or as an angry outburst
against what they saw as a poor judgement.

What is the likelihood of that occuring in Shadowrun?

Food riots in New York, etc etc. Mages are valuable, the corporations
want them, the government wants them, they treat them like gods, and let
others starve and die from disease and all the other problems associated
with the barrens, which are no different to the African townships of
today.

OK, total population persecution of Mages, is never likely to match the
lunacy of the Salem Witch Trials, but...

People are scared of the unknown, whether that is rational or not is
immaterial. They simply are. And to the majority of people, they would
have NO understanding of magic, therefore, they would inately mistrust
it, be nervous of it, be wary of the person who can use it.

Does anyone know the true power of magic? It destroyed a civilisation.
Two civilisations in fact - sort of.

Think about it... Please. :)

Do you really think that Magic is suddenly going to make a totally
unreasonable world, that reacts in extreme ways, suddenly reasonable?

Is Shadowrun a "reasonable" future, or an extreme future?

No. You won't have huge lynch mobs hunting down mages. No, you might
not have a repeat of the Salem Witch Trials. But people will be
irrationally scared of magic. Magic is not as prevelant as say, donut
shops today. It's more like Fort Knox. Unique, and just a little
strange.


Question.
Dreamland. The government says it doesn't exist. Do you believe them?
The government say they don't have a UFO. Do you believe them? The
government say, that even if Dreamland did exist, nothing questionable
would ever go on there anyway. Do you believe them?

Mages say Magic is harmless, and we're all really nice people. Don't be
scared, just because we can fly, read minds, heal with a touch like
Jesus Christ, fry people alive, destroy entire buildings, make little
Sammies broken leg all better again. Make volcanoes erupt. Help the
hospitals to research a cure for cancer. Work in concert and hold a
government to ransom. Make pretty fireworks and puffs of coloured smoke
for Jenny's birthday party. Destroy a section of the national guard and
turn them into greasy smears.

Do you believe them?

Harmless? Hardly.
Feared? Definately.
Hated? By a few.


Scenarios for you.

A mage expresses in the family. The family quite rightly are very
proud of their little magic user, they want only the best for Dianne.

They tell their friends, neoghbours and relations, with whom they are
very friendly. It's a nice neighbourhood in middle class UCAS, a small,
pleasant town, where very little of any note happens.

Their friends and everybody else is suitably impressed and they all
visit over a few weeks, to see little Dianne do a few tricks. There's a
fella who lives over the old Library, maybe he can help Dianne, people
say he "knows things".

Ben, the old "knows a few things" is also a mage, but he's been
sensible, he keeps it quite.

He agrees to teach Dianne what little he knows about the subject, and
will check out if there is a college or school she can go to that's not
too far away. Unfortunately the nearest one is in Texas, several
hundred miles away.

Ben teaches Dianne. And slowly she learns to heal, and control her
powers.

Then one day, a nomad gang head through the town, causing mayhem, the
Sherrif gets shot, he's hurt badly. "Hey, didn't Dianne heal Mary-Lou
last month when she broke her arm?" Yeah... The town gets Dianne. She
likes the Sherif, he's a big bear of a man, who's popular in the town as
being fair, yet taking no nonsense. She works for several hours trying
to heal him... But she can't, the power just won't work for her today.
The Sherif is dying, and she can't help, she screams in despair to fetch
Ben, Ben can heal him. Silence... The towns people didn't know Ben was
a Mage. They fetch him. Ben's not happy, he liked the quiet life. But
the Sherif is a good man, so he heals him. The bullet drops to the
floor with a thud in the silence.

Two mages. And nobody knew. "Did you see what ben did?" Everybody, of
course is damned grateful. Ben AND Dianne. Hey...

Word gets around. So and so phones his sick relation in Kansas City,
who phones someone else.

There's a miracle healer in town. Two of them actually. It starts off
with one or two people. Dianne doesn't mind, she likes to help, and
she's not doing anything wrong. Ben is getting nervous. He's seen this
before he knows what's coming.

Very soon, hundreds of people from the surrounding area are flooding
into small-town Bellington... Hundreds... and the Media, shit the town
is famous. Then one day an evangelist arrives, the evangelist preaches
against magic, it's a sin against God. The people are god fearing and
highly religious, but they know it can't be a sin. Why would God let
Dianne have this wonderful power if it was a Sin... But some believe.

Soon, somebody else arrives in town. A scarred man, with a mean look in
his eye. Nobody likes him, nobody trusts him. But the Sherrif can't do
anything. The guy hasn't broken any laws. You can't kick a man out
because he looks strange.

Two days later, Ben and Dianne are walking down to the Hardware store.
The people have slackened off a bit, And it's quiet enough for the
"Healers" to go for a walk. The man with the mean look has been waiting
for this. He steps out of his car, and caps off three rounds straight
into Ben's head. The man lost his family to a renegade in New York,
he's a Mage Hunter, a killer, and he's seen these two in a press report.
Dianne screams in terror, and somehow, manages to vapourise the man with
the mean look. He erupts as a fireball explodes around him.

People heard the gunshots... they heard the scream... they saw Dianne
incinerate someone.

Word gets around...

People walk the other side of the street now. They like Dianne...
But...


End scenario.

Is that so strange. Is that sooooo unlikely.

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 48
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 02:07:41 -0500
> Yes, I agree it does work both ways. Not all mages are going to be
> hated because of what they are. But they will be feared, even by their
> own family. Because they can do something the others can't... Something
> amazing, and incredibly dangerous. "Hey we've seen Dan Kraate the
> Vigilante Mage" on that trid show "DEAD DAWN" ... Association is not
> necessarily truth, but it is still there. Even the wondrous mage's
> parents are going to be worried, and a little fearfull. They've seen
> what mages can do - look at Chicago. Look what happened to the
> President. Look what happened to Mt St Helens. We'd better get him/her
> registered and talk to our doctor, maybe he knows some school specially
> for him/her.
Like MIT&T, UCLA, Oxford, Berkley, Georgetown, U. of Heidelburg (in nice,
magic friendly Germnay)...
Message no. 49
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:02:44 -0500
>Question. Seeing as Shadowrunners are effectively unSINed and are - for
>want of a better word - outcasts from society - let's face it,
>Shadowrunning doesn't pay enough for what happens - although I've seen
>some incredible numbers bandied about here on the list. Why would a mage
>work the Shadows?

I think this is a matter of your point of view. If most runners can do
work along the lines of hits, extractions, and other such work, they should
be pulling in a lot of money. The organizations they're working for have
the money, and their skills, legal or not, are worth a lot. Especially
this is true of mages (you'll recall the 1 in 100 statistic, and the 'heavy
recruiting' that corps do); they're rare on the street aside from shamanic
types whose demeanor doesn't really suit corp work. If I didn't get paid
very, very well, I wouldn't take the sorts of jobs a lot of runners do, you
get shot at too much, there are too many risks. Now, if all your
characters do is delivery and courier work, their lives are safer, the work
should pay less... but frankly, those jobs pay less because they're safer
and easier. There are plenty of criminals with in-demand skills who make
large amounts of money, I don't see criminal status as keeping runners down.

>The last three runs my players have taken was to deliver a box to
>somewhere else 500 (overall, not each). Second delivery, a bit more
>involved, they got shot at, their contact was detroyed in an explosion,
>and a police man is hunting them... 3,000 (overall, not each)

So they're scraping together a living. Why not take up delivering pizza?
It's a helluva lot safer, and pays about as well. Now, this does depend on
the level of skill of the characters, but... If I had a contact killed,
someone was using explosives against me, for 3000 for the entire run, I
think I'd be finding new employment. If they have useful skills, there has
to be someone else who will pay them better.

>Why are the characters running? Because they can't do anything else.
>They are, by their own making, social outcasts. They can't get anything
>better than Pizza delivery, club bouncer or motorcycle courier. BUt why
>would a mage do this? He/she can earn thousands just by reporting to
>receptionj at Aztechnology.

>I like keeping my players hungry, and yes, there is a mage on the team.
>No he's not initiated. Why not? Well, aside from the fact that they
>are based in FASA's fascist regime that is the UK...

>Question. Why is it that in nearly every game I've seen, nearly every
>mage character I've read about on the list and elsewhere, the mage is
>always initiated. How did this happen? How is it, that a SINless
>individual with no personal history of no fixed abode, was instantly
>accepted by a magical group, a - by it's own definition - paranoid
>magical group, gains entry, intiates and becomes a fully fledged member,
>without some serious hard work to prove themselves, and without becoming
>a "normal member of society".

I think you're assuming that PC mages initiate with a group, which isn't a
necessity (makes it cheaper, yeah, but it's quite possible to self-initiate).
And if you have two magical PC characters, it would make sense to form a
group together to get the karma discount on initiating, yes? Perhaps even
encourage some other magical runners you know to join in? Safety in
numbers...

>In a thousand or two thousnd years of game time, I will change the way I
>do things, by then there won't be any humans left in the world and
>everything will be magic. <that was sarcasm by the way> Until then. I
>like the way FASA dealt with Shadowrun magic. It's rare. And in my
>games, it's damned rare, and the people are afraid of it. And I rather
>like the "buy a licence" logic from Lone Star Sourcebook.

I like magic to be rare in SR, too. That doesn't mean that there being PC
initiates (much as I don't like the way initiation works) doesn't make
sense, nor does it mean that mage PCs being common in the same group
doesn't make sense. It would make a *lot* of sense to work with other
magically active types in running. You can cover each other's back in the
astral, you can defend each other and switch off on spell defense when you
encounter magical security (and given your level of talent, if the
opposition has it, it'll prolly be guarding the sensitive things you'll be
hired to break in and take).

>FEAR FACTOR? They've got a ritual link to you. You'd better behave. If
>the government abuse this, then they _will_ pay for it. Magically
>capable people might be rare, but if you piss them off they are a
>powerful force.

Exactly. Though I will say there are differences in approach to government
in Britain and in the U.S. In Britain, for instance, who runs the
television media? Gov't. Who runs medical care? The gov't. The British
government has a lot more... acceptance of controls and limitations being
placed on the public for their good. And I'll say that people might even
be safer there because firearms _are_ illegal outside of shooting ranges,
etc. It's just not an American approach to the problem, the American theory
on gov't (much molested and stretched though it may be) being that there
should be laws preventing harms, and outside of that, the government should
stay out of the way of the people to do whatever they wish. If you're not
actually harming someone, you shouldn't be bothered by the law. Owning a
gun doesn't hurt anyone, and might protect you from someone who has a gun
and intent to harm you. Now, going out and threatening someone with your
gun is a crime, you're violating someone's rights, and the law steps in and
punishes you. That's how government is supposed to work in the U.S.
Neither approach is wrong, but they represent two different mindsets.

>As I've said before
>
>The government can be trusted. The government is your friend. Trust in
>the government. The government knows what is best for you.

The Computer, the Computer is your friend. Heretic! Heretic!!

losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 50
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:11:23 -0500
Rune Fostervoll[SMTP:runefo@***.UIO.NO] wrote:
> >> available. Also, there is a number of people that might know you. If
> >> there is an appropriate fee, they might talk. Secondly, the courts
> >> has means of making you talk.. truth spells or mechanical
> >> equivalents far more sophisticated than today's machines might very
> >> well be used against you. Lastly, you have a magical library of your
> >People talking - yes, but truth spells or mechanical equivalents are
> >an infringement of the Fifth Amendment. (It is even mentioned with
> >spells like Compel Truth).
>
> That was badly worded, I am afraid. I mean that they have ways of detecting
> if you lie. Forcing them to speak is, of course, not an option. But the
> jury will not ignore that someone refuses to answer certain questions while
> being searched for truth or falsehood. The reason lie detectors are not
> in common use is that they are not reliable enough - that is, now, on the
> slide, and will most probably be quite ordinary by 2050.
>

I'm pretty sure you can refuse to submit to a polygraph (at least in the US)
under your fifth amendment rights. No doubt spells such as Detect Truth are
acceptable in UCAS courts, but such a spell may be protested by the defense.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 51
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 03:36:29 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971118132306.006ecad8@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>I think this is a very good analysis. I would add one thing, however,
>about the envy and fear of mages. The one thing that makes mages different
>from most any group is that they can spring up anywhere. They aren't like
>a race of people, who for the most part are only born of themselves.
>Instead, magicaly active people are born in any and all population groups.
>This means that while some people might fear and hate mages, every single
>mage has two parents,

In the Barrens? :)

>neigbors, family and friends. As soon as their
>powers manifest, they are obviously different from everybody else,

How _obviously_ do they manifest?

When they do a pretty illusion to stop their baby brother crying?

Or when they give Mommy third-degree burns in a fit of temper?

Some have said magic doesn't become a problem without extensive
training. In which case many of the 1% magically active go through life
unaware of their talents, never discovered or trained. Or they're
grabbed as soon as their ability is detectable, schooled seperately,
isolated from their peers.

>and will
>likely act that way. That means that some of the mundanes around them
>might become envious and fearful, but others will not. It has to work
>both ways.


> One other point, as mages are not extremely common (1 in 50 of the
>street
>population by Rune's rough calculation), there won't be that many cases of
>people who are not already aquainted with the magical personally to come
>into contact with the actual workings of magic.


Would you be relaxed and confident around someone with wired reflexes?
You're as likely to know such a person...

After seeing a Shark shaman in a killing frenzy or a berserk Wolf adept
even once, would you be sure all magicians were friendly, safe people?
Or would you keep a safe distance from them just in case?

And - key point - do magicians advertise their status or conceal it?
Read "Friday" by Robert Heinlein for a not dissimilar situation.

>Why should so much hate
>and fear exist, you can't identify a mage when he is walking down the
>street unless he is obvious.

So it's a surprise when your friend Bill turns out to be a magician?

And you can't identify magicians. But they can warp minds, kill people,
do all sorts of _bad_ things as well as their good abilities. And some
_will_ find the cost/freedom/risk analysis of crime favours a criminal
career rather than life trapped in a corporate facility behind layers of
securiy...

>I think at worst the majority of people with
>no personal relation with magic or the magically active will be mistrustful
>of magic, perhaps dislike it. I don't think many will be motivated to
>hatred and violence unless they've had personal bad experiences.

Agreed, but it doesn't need many "Magical Terrorist Slays Children In
Sorcerous Rampage" headlines to turn distrust into fear and hate. And,
magic being the powerful tool that it is, magical terrorism _would_
happen.

Ask anyone who lived in Los Alamos.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 52
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:06:24 -0500
On Wed, Nov 19, 1997 at 03:36:29AM +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In article <3.0.32.19971118132306.006ecad8@********.mail.yale.edu>,
> David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
> >I think this is a very good analysis. I would add one thing, however,
> >about the envy and fear of mages. The one thing that makes mages different
> >from most any group is that they can spring up anywhere. They aren't like
> >a race of people, who for the most part are only born of themselves.
> >Instead, magicaly active people are born in any and all population groups.
> >This means that while some people might fear and hate mages, every single
> >mage has two parents,
>
<Snipped>
Just my two cents for this thread. I agree with several other...
magic has been around for what 40 years or so. It is not the scary
unknown it once was. Yes fasa has always said they were 1% of the
population (increasing with each generation), but in the realm
runners operate in, they are fairly common. (I still only allow
two magic characters per group, depending on the size...keeps
a good balance). Most people probably won't be more afraid
of magic, then from a gun. Most people won't have the knowledge
to understand what magic is. (Just like most people these
days still don't understand that shooting a pistol one
handed only occurs in the movies, and the fact that
people don't go deaf from the sound...only happens in the movies).
They would only know what they saw on TV or simsense.
Then again...it depends on where you live, and how
high up the food chain you are. From all accounts, Tir Elves
(even the average person) are probably comfortable with it.
After all its everywhere. The squatters in the barrens aren't
going to care, death from a gun or fireball is still dead.
Anyway...you get the point, I've rambled long enough. Hope
I've at least added something to this thread. :)


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all of its students.
Message no. 53
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:17:30 +0100
Jonathan Hurley said on 13:11/19 Nov 97...

> I'm pretty sure you can refuse to submit to a polygraph (at least in the US)
> under your fifth amendment rights. No doubt spells such as Detect Truth are
> acceptable in UCAS courts, but such a spell may be protested by the defense.

I don't quite remember where I read this, but it's illegal in the UCAS to
use magic (incl. Analyze Truth or Mind Probe) to get information from the
defendent or witnesses in the UCAS. I think it has something to do with
a law that says (correct me if I'm wrong) you can't incriminate yourself.
(Which, BTW, I've always thought of as very odd...)

The NAN, though, use spells quite extensively to determine truth and guilt
in court, but usually only when cast by shamans who are part of the
judicial system.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The future. Available tomorrow.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 54
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:39:27 -0500
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Gurth wrote:

> Jonathan Hurley said on 13:11/19 Nov 97...
>
> > I'm pretty sure you can refuse to submit to a polygraph (at least in the US)
> > under your fifth amendment rights. No doubt spells such as Detect Truth are
> > acceptable in UCAS courts, but such a spell may be protested by the defense.
>
> I don't quite remember where I read this, but it's illegal in the UCAS to
> use magic (incl. Analyze Truth or Mind Probe) to get information from the
> defendent or witnesses in the UCAS. I think it has something to do with
> a law that says (correct me if I'm wrong) you can't incriminate yourself.
> (Which, BTW, I've always thought of as very odd...)
>
I would notthink that analyze truth would violate the prohibition against
self-incrimination when testifing, as witnesses are already under oath to
tell the truth. The presence of a mage to keep witnesses in line would
simply be another protection against perjury.
Message no. 55
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 06:10:22 -0800
> > >People talking - yes, but truth spells or mechanical equivalents are
> > >an infringement of the Fifth Amendment. (It is even mentioned with
> > >spells like Compel Truth).

> > That was badly worded, I am afraid. I mean that they have ways of detecting
> > if you lie. Forcing them to speak is, of course, not an option. But the
> > jury will not ignore that someone refuses to answer certain questions while
> > being searched for truth or falsehood. The reason lie detectors are not
> > in common use is that they are not reliable enough - that is, now, on the
> > slide, and will most probably be quite ordinary by 2050.

> I'm pretty sure you can refuse to submit to a polygraph (at least in the US)
> under your fifth amendment rights. No doubt spells such as Detect Truth are
> acceptable in UCAS courts, but such a spell may be protested by the defense.

The problem with lie-detectors/truth spells and the like is that you
only shift the source of veracity, from the speaker, to a (hopefully)
objective third-party.

Now, suppose we have a high-publicity trial -- OJ, let's say -- and the
court-appointed mage *knew*, just knew for damn sure that the jury was
hooked - or possibly one was bribed*. And here he is, in a position
where, instead of applying a Detect Truth spell, a simple Control Mind
would swing the verdict by causing our witness to say something
different.

He knows he won't be caught. He's a mage, remember? - he's already
scanned the attorney crowd, and they're all norms; there's a mage
bailiff, to be sure, but most of the time she's in Astral, scouting the
outside of the court building to make sure one outside tries anything
tricky. Two of the three elementals guarding the court room are bound
to him. Anyone watching the trial on MatrixCourt will only get trideo
feed, not Astral vibes.

One spell. One brief moment.

See now why they might not be allowed?


-Mb



* - I do not, in any way shape or form, mean to imply that one of the OJ
jurors may have been bribed. Sheeesh.
Message no. 56
From: lucifer <lucifer@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:59:15 -0600
Jeremiah Stevens wrote:
<snip>

> I would notthink that analyze truth would violate the prohibition again=
st
> self-incrimination when testifing, as witnesses are already under oath =
to
> tell the truth. The presence of a mage to keep witnesses in line would
> simply be another protection against perjury.

Technically, no. You do not have to submit to detection skills in court =

if you plead the 5th. However, otherwise it's open game. IN court. Truth
detection spells cannot be used in gathering information by the police. =
If
the police try to introduce results of a detection spell in court as evid=
ence,
the defense can get it thrown out. While being questioned by the police, =

you can refuse to submit to detection spells.
I came to this by mixing what I've found in certain SR books and the law =
as it
is now. If anyone has anything else to add to this, let me know.....

Lucifer
Prince of Darkness, Eater of Souls

"One owes respect to the living. To the Dead one owes
only Truth."--Voltaire

"When devils will the blackest sins put on, they
do suggest at first with heavenly shows."--Shakespeare,
from 'Othello'
Message no. 57
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:43:12 -0500
At 04:39 PM 11/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I would notthink that analyze truth would violate the prohibition against
>self-incrimination when testifing, as witnesses are already under oath to
>tell the truth. The presence of a mage to keep witnesses in line would
>simply be another protection against perjury.

It does if the mage who casts it can lie about the results of his spell...
Yes? And since spells are not perfect, they have a varying effectiveness,
they would suggest a perfection that isn't really there. Much as with a
polygraph, room for error or corruption exists, don't allow it. Protect
the defendant's rights.

losthalo, in Jeffersonian mode :)
Message no. 58
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:03:07 -0500
At 08:09 PM 11/18/97 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <3.0.32.19971118004847.00738400@********.mail.yale.edu>,
>David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>>For mages, I have no problem with some degree of registration -- something
>>along the lines of you must register all mages who want to charge money for
>>healing or other magical services, or perhaps even to cast spells in
>>public. The registration involves your name, SIN, and maybe fingerprints
>>or retinal pattern -- for ID purposes, not for tracking and constant
>>monitoring. Of course, if a registered mage uses magic, it is assault with
>>a deadly weapon, in the absence of proof of self defense. If an
>>unregistered mage does, same exact deal, probably with a hefty fine on top.
>> Not too outrageous, but something.
>
>We're not too far apart, then.

When we stop casting our points of view in the most extreme light, we
discover a middle ground. Hmmm, there must be a lesson in there somewhere,
but I'm not quite getting it.

>
>>If this is the case, and this is how I handle magic, then people have much
>>less to fear, because mages will never be able to run rampant.
>
>So there's no firearm crime in your game either? Because if the above
>keeps mages from crime, it'll stop anyone who depends on mundane means
>of violence.

Not none, just less than there would be in an anarchy.

>
>>Why the hell were they stupid enough to do
>>that? I don't know, but it is that stupidity that I fear, imagine people
>>like that with firearms. Nope, magic is not to be feared nearly as much as
>>desperate, strung out, or dumb street types.
>
>Now add in desperate, strung out or dumb magicians. What is there about
>magicians that makes them immune to, for instance, drug or alcohol
>abuse?

This may be just my view, but I think that anyone with a serious
drug/alcohol problem would end up burning their magic rating away fairly
quickly.

--DT
Message no. 59
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:08:07 -0500
At 07:45 PM 11/18/97 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <3.0.32.19971118001747.007506f8@********.mail.yale.edu>,
>David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>>Magic and firearms are not the same, or even comporable, so stop harping on
>>the UK's gun control laws.
>
>They both kill.
>
>You don't ban it and execute the practicioners. You do limit
>availability of foci and fetishes, control talismongers the same way you
>do gunsmiths (yes, a power focus can help a Heal spell, but combat spell
>fetishes are only useful for hurting people), and require licencing of
>magicians.
>
>You won't ever be able to _ban_ magic. Controlling the practicioners is
>the best that can be done.
>
There is one further catch with magic, mages and shamans can always make
their own fetishes and foci, and often for less money and karma than they
would have to pay normally. It is kinda hard for a gangster to make his
own guns though (except for maybe a zipgun). Magic is just too versatile,
as you yourself said, mages CAN teach themselves given time. I think that
is why the FASA stated conclusion for the UCAS was to not try to control
magic, but instead deal with its effects. This doesn't rule out
legislation, but it does really make any other efforts moot.

--DT
Message no. 60
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:22:20 -0600
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Gurth wrote:

> Jonathan Hurley said on 13:11/19 Nov 97...
>
> > I'm pretty sure you can refuse to submit to a polygraph (at least in the US)
> > under your fifth amendment rights. No doubt spells such as Detect Truth are
> > acceptable in UCAS courts, but such a spell may be protested by the defense.
>
> I don't quite remember where I read this, but it's illegal in the UCAS to
> use magic (incl. Analyze Truth or Mind Probe) to get information from the
> defendent or witnesses in the UCAS. I think it has something to do with
> a law that says (correct me if I'm wrong) you can't incriminate yourself.
> (Which, BTW, I've always thought of as very odd...)

I believe that is in the Grimmy Thingy 2 opening. It's not so odd
when you remember the fact that we run on a "jury of you peers" system.
The fifth amendment allows you to not answer questions that "might"
incriminate you, not just questions that will. It's very helpful to
suspects who have shady backgrounds BUT are innocent that the jury might
just believw are guilty because they are not completely honest people, or
might have motive, etc.


> The NAN, though, use spells quite extensively to determine truth and guilt
> in court, but usually only when cast by shamans who are part of the
> judicial system.

Travellers law #1: Never get arrested in another country.

Czar
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czar Eggbert
Ruler, Dark Side of the Moon.
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5648
mailto:czregbrt@*********.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality!? Is that some new game?"
-MDF
"I'll need morphine, lots of it, and a pistol."
-The English Patient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 61
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:58:57 GMT
On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:56:47 -0500, losthalo wrote:

> At 09:04 AM 11/16/97 GMT, you wrote:
> >This is very interesting. Since the mere *possession* of anything more
> >lethal (and mundane) as a knife or holdout pistol can merit a fine or
> >imprisonment, you /could/ argue that the mere *possession* of certain
> >spells of a similar lethality should also merit similar penalties.
> >
> >If a particular case involved assault via manabolt and there isn't enough
> >evidence to prove intent, the prosecution could reduce the charges to a
> >lesser charge of "possession of a manabolt spell". Of course, the hard
> >part would be confiscating said spell :) Perhaps "spell permits" would
be
> >in order?
>
> But regulation would be nearly impossible. The only time you'd see
> prosecution is when the person cast the spell. If it's a destructive
> spell, they were already committing a higher crime anyway.

That shouldn't matter. Robbery and B&E are already crimes... using a gun
in doing so automatically raises the crime to a more serious level in many
countries already. Using magic in the act of committing a crime could very
well increase the severity of the crime in 205x.

> Aside from a mind probe (which is illegal as self-incrimination) you can't
> find out what spells a mage knows except through him using them.

But if magicians turn out to be as scary of a threat as some would believe,
laws-- even constitutional ones-- can change. Metahumans aren't considered
legal "citizens" in many parts of the world. Who's to say that mages still
have as many rights as mundanes? Public fear can do wonders, even if it is
misguided.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 62
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:03:02 +0000
In article <3.0.3.16.19971119000902.215fb89a@**********.com>, losthalo
<losthalo@********.COM> writes
>>The last three runs my players have taken was to deliver a box to
>>somewhere else 500 (overall, not each). Second delivery, a bit more
>>involved, they got shot at, their contact was detroyed in an explosion,
>>and a police man is hunting them... 3,000 (overall, not each)
>
>So they're scraping together a living. Why not take up delivering pizza?
>It's a helluva lot safer, and pays about as well.

Because running the shadows pays three thousand for two days' work, and
my PC has that money on top of what he makes as a motorcycle courier.

Show me the courier job that is entirely legal, takes 48 hours and pays
three thosand sterling (fifteen hundred nuyen per person, this is set in
Pete's variant Britain).

>Now, this does depend on
>the level of skill of the characters, but... If I had a contact killed,
>someone was using explosives against me, for 3000 for the entire run, I
>think I'd be finding new employment. If they have useful skills, there has
>to be someone else who will pay them better.

We _don't_ have useful skills :) That's part of the fun. Our PCs are
recent university graduates with assorted problems, and while mine is
military-trained he's also very frightened of the Lord Protector's
Office and doesn't want to be arrested in the middle of a firefight :)

>>FEAR FACTOR? They've got a ritual link to you. You'd better behave. If
>>the government abuse this, then they _will_ pay for it. Magically
>>capable people might be rare, but if you piss them off they are a
>>powerful force.
>
>Exactly. Though I will say there are differences in approach to government
>in Britain and in the U.S. In Britain, for instance, who runs the
>television media? Gov't.

<Hysterical laughter>

Ever heard Government ministers fulminate about BBC bias? The BBC is
independent and prides itself on that: they've infuriated ministers
since they were created.

ITV is commercial, and generally crap. Channel 4 is independent and
likes to piss off the People in Power because that attracts the viewers
they want. Channel 5 is movies, quiz shows and sports. All of them have
to make money, not please Ministers.

On cable I can get Sky News (run by an Australian billionaire), EBN
(don't know who runs that but it's not the British Government) and CNN
(Ted Turner) on 04, 05, and 06 respectively.

Sorry, no State TV here.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 63
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:59:41 -0500
Avenger wrote:

>And the comparison with mages is invalid?
>
>Hey... I've said that already haven't I? Hmmm...

I have no problem with some form of registration, I was just arguing
against the take ritual samples so we can kill them form or registration.

>
>>The rest, about people demanding safety from masses of mages running
>>rampant whether mages actually do.
>
>Not masses of mages running rampant.
>
>It only takes one.
>
>The comparison, although you seem to hate it, can only be made with the
>next most dangerous article available to Shadowrun. Firearms.
>
>It took _one_ man to get all semiauto rifles and full auto
>rifles/shotguns banned in the UK.
>
>It took _one_ man to get _all_ pistols from .22 up banned in the UK
>
>It has taken slightly more than that to produce some pretty strict
>legislation in the US. Legislation that gets slowly tightened every
>year.
>
>What is so different about mages? It only takes a few to go apeshit,
>and there _will_ be public outcry.

The catch is that a FASA sourcebook printed (quoted by someone else), that
due to constitutional issues, there was no way to effectively restrict the
use of magic. Instead, legislation was passed that discussed punishments
etc for the results of magic. If you kill someone, or hurt them, or
manipulate them, that is clearly against the law. However, there are no
laws against the study of magic, nor the learning of any spell, at least as
far as that sourcebook quote seemed to imply. Besides, as I've already
stated, mages can make their own formulae and learn any spell they want,
despire restrictions on the sale of such. Much harder for people to make
guns. (And don't quote the "Right to bear arms," it is the most
misunderstood portion of the constitution, and only continues to exist
because of the masses of dollars supporting its presence.)
>Over the last couple of years, there has been a tremendous amount of
>posts regarding mages who are "too powerful" <tm> They take over
games,
>casting high end killing spells. One of the favourite questions here is
>"How do I deal with the mage" "What should I do"... And the
response is
>invariably, as has been used in this argument.
>
>Call in SWAT
>Hit him with more powerful mages
>Use a military team.
>Give the sec team a tac nuke (OK maybe not that but...)
>
>The reason I started this was to introduce the concept of magical
>registration. A way of forcing players, by legal and moral statutes to
>think before casting hellblast in main street.

Why does registration make them think any more than not? It has to be
enforced, how? By other mages. So, you are still throwing mages at the
players.
>
>One assumption that has been made, and one that particularly irritates
>me, is that although the game is based primarily in Seattle, many people
>make the remark - "Yeah, but there is no one else by this top secret
>research lab in the middle of nowhere."

Agreed, witnesses abound, and should be used to counteract the players.

>All of the modules, bar a couple are based _in_ a city. The game itself
>is Urban in nature or - IN a city. Where there are witnesses, people to
>terrify, people to see. But nowhere in the rules does it state, that a
>mage has a physical "manifestation" for casting spells. Only another
>mage, if there happens to be one, will notice, and then only if he makes
>the perception test at the time of casting (Page 98 Awakenings) (Hence
>my and Pauls remarks about "kill with a thought" which seems to have
>misinterpreted)

That is completely incorrect. You are referring to the observation of
spell signature, this is NOT the same as noticing the casting itself. As
I've already quoted, there are rules for noticing spell casting, and the TN
is lower with higher force. Additionally, common sense would dictate that
physical spells with elemental effects would be even more obvious, and
there is no reason not to think that there would be a firey trail to a
firebomb spell. If a fireball goes off, people will remember, and one of
them (who scored a couple of 4's on an intelligence test) will recall the
strange guy with the dirty jacket who was doing some kinda weird shit,
looked like he was constipated, right before the spell went off. Mundane
witness, right there.

>
>Awakenings, p. 98: ". The decision to observe the spell must
>be made during the same combat turn as the casting. After that any
>trace of the physical manipulation of magic through the caster is
>gone."

This is about spell signature, not being able to tell if spellcasting was
involved. Magic use does leave a lingering trace in astral space, but (and
this I was wrong about), it can't be (easily) linked to the castor.

>
>When you're dodging bullets, it's difficult to stop and concentrate and
>look carefully at people and notice something that might be incoming.
>What are the chances of you looking out of the window of your house, at
>exactly the moment a car crashes in the street?

Me, low, but what are the chances that _someone_ sees the car crash.
Pretty damn good.

>
>It states in six of the 74 sourcebooks I referenced (the six that is -
>so far) during this discussion that Magically active people are
>_extremely_ rare. And that includes those who don't even know they're
>active. I have such a problem, with teams of mages running around
>taking the control of a game away from the GM, and the GM having to
>resort to "extreme measures" to handle it.

Even if mages are extremely rare, that means only that the "average" person
won't run into them. Shadowrunners are not average. They break into
places, they use guns and magic, they attract a lot of attention when
things foul up. It is an uninformed view that just because most people
don't deal with mages that it is unrealistic for NPC mages to go after PC
mages. Afterall, most people aren't sought by the police, or chased by
SWAT teams. Does that mean that criminals are therefore also immune, just
because the number of SWAT team members are low, or because the average
person never sees one. Hell no; if they hole up in some fortress in Texas
with piles of guns, they'll have FBI HRT, SWAT, BATF, and a bunch of other
government types running about trying to kill them. If mages cause a stir,
LoneStar will bring in their mages as backup, pure and simple, and realistic.

There is only an imbalance if there are PC mages and no NPC mages. If
mages are THAT rare in your world that you want to NPC mages, no mage cops,
no mage corp types, no nothing, then you _will_ run into trouble if you
allow PC mages. Don't let the fact that mages are supposed to be rare
deter you from using them in your game, that makes no sense at all, and is
begging for out of control PC's.
>Yet, the sammy can't carry his assault rifle/mg/cannon around ready for
>instant use 24 hours a day. Nobody can wear a full length armoured
>duster in mid summer, nobody. Also, if you've ever tried carrying a
>weapon like an AR for any length of time, you'll know they're damned
>heavy, carry that in a concealed fashion, and you whole way of moving
>becomes more strained, and more tiring. So, how do you compensate for
>that? Make the spell visible. Give it a legality rating. Make sure
>there are "direct" consequences to casting. Not just a
"possibility" of
>being spotted.

What if the sammy has a silenced pistol, or silenced cybergun.
Concealable, quiet, subtle. You are creating an artificial imbalance. If
the mages whip out the equivalent of assault rifles and panther cannons,
they are tossing around high force spells with elemental effects. Ain't no
one gonna miss that in any game I GM. However, the perception rules make
sense for when the mage tries to toss a force 3 stun bolt and is trying to
keep it quiet. Same as if the sammy narc's somebody. Even a grade 2
initiate casting a force 6 spell still means a TN of 4 for anybody within
LOS to notice the spell. I'd make that even more obvious for a physical
spell. No one is going to miss that, 4's are easy to get. The rules work
just fine, all you need to do is add a little flash to the description of
what it is that people are noticing when the notice the magic, and I think
you'll be happy.

>
>>The simple truth is that the use of magic
>>can be detected at the time of casting by a mundane.
>
>Can it? That's not how I see the rules. It doesn't state anywhere that
>I can find so far, that there is a "visible" trace of magic around the
>caster - that's an assumption some people make, and one I enforce in the
>game. How does a mundane notice astral energy being concentrated - it's
>invisible.


For the last time. Pg. 132 BBB, Noticing Spellcasting.
The TN is 2 * (magic rating - spell force)
There is an (optional) additional -2 modifier if the observer is mage as
well. This seems to make it pretty damn clear to me that mundanes can tell
when the powerful mojo is being thrown. (And, any use of a fetish requires
that the fetish actually be used, that means pulling it out and holding it,
and maybe it going up in a puff of smoke aswell.)

>
>>Further, spells don't
>>always work.
>
>Yes. That's true. They all have a target number, which like other
>things is variable. The target gets a willpower test to resist it,
>which is also variable. So you are correct, but that was not the point
>of my, or Pauls comments. It's not that the direct target gets a chance
>to survive, it's over the "reaction" to magic, and the fact that it
>seems the general attitude is to play the game at a higher power level
>than that indicated by the core rules. Magic is rare, magically aware
>are rare. It will be a couple thousand years before Shadowrun magic is
>at a comparable power level to EarthDawn (it's predecessor). Magic is
>different in Shadowrun, as it should be. But... it's RARE That means
>that mages are similar to an endangered species. You might see them on
>TV, but the majority of people won't ever have seen one for real. How
>many people on this list have seen a real live sperm whale, or watched
>Orca in the wild, or seen a great white in the flesh so to speak, rather
>than on some TV show? Or a Siberian Tiger... How many people in the US
>have seen the Ocean? Aside from on TV. Yet the ocean covers 78 percent
>of the world's surface.

Okay, lets do a little more math. 1% of the population is a FASA number,
but there are all those exceptions of peole supressing their ability, etc.,
so lets use .1% Lets see, there are what, like 8 billion people in the
world now (+/- 3 billion, I really have no clue). Let's use the same
number for 205x, population growth being offset by those nasty plagues...
8 billion * .001 = 8 million people. (that would be 80 million of the full
1% figure is used). That is a hell of a lot of people. That is the size
of a _large_ city. Magically active are not endangered species, they are
just a minority. Granted, you can't always tell a mage from a norm when
you see one, so what this really means is that:

Mages are not extremely rare, but magic is. Most people probably see more
than a mage a week just walking around downtown of any large city. They
just don't know they are seeing it because those mages are tossing spells
around and summoning spirits.

What is the point: There are mages all over the place, but magic is still
rare. This is the best of all worlds. The populace can still be scared of
magic, because they don't see it, and don't recognize the mages they do
see, but if PC's are going hog wild, you can realistically materialize a
mage (cop, corp, or civilian) to keep them in check.

--DT
Message no. 64
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:48:56 -0500
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, James Lindsay wrote:

> That shouldn't matter. Robbery and B&E are already crimes... using a gun
> in doing so automatically raises the crime to a more serious level in many
> countries already. Using magic in the act of committing a crime could very
> well increase the severity of the crime in 205x.
>
> > Aside from a mind probe (which is illegal as self-incrimination) you can't
> > find out what spells a mage knows except through him using them.
To solve this, introduce a house rule that says that spells, or at least
the general type of spell (combat-physical, combat-mana, dmagin
manipulation-fire based etc.) so up in an aura, and it can be assensed.
Yes, it could be masked and would be difficult, but it gives mages one
more thing to worry about.
>
> But if magicians turn out to be as scary of a threat as some would believe,
> laws-- even constitutional ones-- can change. Metahumans aren't considered
> legal "citizens" in many parts of the world. Who's to say that mages still
> have as many rights as mundanes? Public fear can do wonders, even if it is
> misguided.
It says in the Grimoire that magical crimes don't even make the front
page. The occur, obviously, but are treated as most violent crime is.
People seem to have accepted it as a fact of life, albeit an unplesent
one. The attitude in ShadowRun seems to be take care of yourself, fuck the
cops, corps, government and the rest. They look out for their interests, I
look out for mine. Thus, I'm gonna carry a gun, even if it is illegal
(which most people do). Why bother to change the laws when the 'Star can't
even get guns out of the hands of criminals, can't keep the highways safe
after dark and can't be trusted not to kick the shit out of a troll just
for being a troll while a mugging takes place around the corner.

>
>
>
> James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
> "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
>
> Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
>
Message no. 65
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 03:09:35 +0000
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.971119181648.16818A-
100000@*******.creighton.edu>, Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
waffled & burbled about Magic and the Law
> I believe that is in the Grimmy Thingy 2 opening. It's not so odd
>when you remember the fact that we run on a "jury of you peers" system.
>The fifth amendment allows you to not answer questions that "might"
>incriminate you, not just questions that will. It's very helpful to
>suspects who have shady backgrounds BUT are innocent that the jury might
>just believw are guilty because they are not completely honest people, or
>might have motive, etc.

Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the Fifth
ammendment, once taken must be adhered to completely for all
questioning, not selected questions.

IE, If someone asks the witness "Did they kill the victim or know
someone who did" - I take the fifth

Does the defendant know what time it is? - I take the fifth.

Once one question under declaration of the fifth ammendment is answered,
_all_ questions must be answered.

Or have I got it all arse-about-face?

>> The NAN, though, use spells quite extensively to determine truth and guilt
>> in court, but usually only when cast by shamans who are part of the
>> judicial system.
>
> Travellers law #1: Never get arrested in another country.

And that's a FACT!


--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk - Shadowtk Newbies Guide & Edgerunners Datastore
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 66
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 03:14:08 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971119190306.0076bc94@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> waffled & burbled about Magic
and the Law

>When we stop casting our points of view in the most extreme light, we
>discover a middle ground. Hmmm, there must be a lesson in there somewhere,
>but I'm not quite getting it.

And the moral of today's sermon is...

Explore the extremes to find the area most suited to all.
Result - happy compromise

.. Explore the easiest solution, and face an extreme reaction.

Example:

A country is refusing to allow certain members of the UN observers team
into sections of it's industry, against UN resolution followinjg
defeat...

Solution - extreme measures, threaten to vapourise the country...
Retaliatory threat...

Extremes explored - now we negotiate. <grin>

...

Why should this list inhabited by not so normal people, be any different
from real life that is inhabited by - not so normal people.


--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 67
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:12:56 -0500
At 03:09 AM 11/20/97 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.971119181648.16818A-

>Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the Fifth
>ammendment, once taken must be adhered to completely for all
>questioning, not selected questions.

No, to my understanding, if they are testifying, the witness* may only
refuse questions which they say might 'tend to incriminate' them. And
since you're testifying, and under an obligation to answer, everything else
is still fair game.

>Once one question under declaration of the fifth ammendment is answered,
>_all_ questions must be answered.
>
>Or have I got it all arse-about-face?

You do indeed. And here I thought you were making a Preacher reference. :)

losthalo
* N.B. this applies to any witness, not just the defendant. Which means
that if answering a question regarding Bob's part in the burglary might
also incriminate me in, say, a kidnapping years ago, I can plead the fifth
and not answer.
Message no. 68
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:44:53 -0500
Gurth[SMTP:gurth@******.NL] wrote:
> Jonathan Hurley said on 13:11/19 Nov 97...
>
> > I'm pretty sure you can refuse to submit to a polygraph (at least in =
the US)
> > under your fifth amendment rights. No doubt spells such as Detect =
Truth are
> > acceptable in UCAS courts, but such a spell may be protested by the =
defense.
>
> I don't quite remember where I read this, but it's illegal in the UCAS =
to
> use magic (incl. Analyze Truth or Mind Probe) to get information from =
the
> defendent or witnesses in the UCAS. I think it has something to do =
with
> a law that says (correct me if I'm wrong) you can't incriminate =
yourself.
> (Which, BTW, I've always thought of as very odd...)

Grimoire 2, p 12, under Magic and the Law: "magical methods such as a =
mind
probe spell cannot be used to produce evidence, as this violates the =
Fifth amendment prohibition against self-incrimination." In my world, =
this extends to all spells that coerce the witness to do something. =
However, a spell that merely analyzes truth is not in the same category. =
After all, the witness can choose not to answer.

BTW, the relevant section of the Fifth amendment to the US Constitution: =


"nor shall any person be [...] compelled in any criminal case to be a =
witness against himself." (The ellipsis contains the "double jeopardy =
clause". I got this from http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html )


--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 69
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:58:45 -0500
At 05:54 AM 11/19/97 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <3.0.32.19971118132306.006ecad8@********.mail.yale.edu>,
>David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> waffled & burbled about Magic
>and the Law
>>>The conclusion is that if you are a mage, keep your fireballis
>>>strictly within the business.
>>>
>>I think this is a very good analysis.
>
>Agreed, it is a good analysis, and nicely written.
>
>>Instead, magicaly active people are born in any and all population groups.
>>This means that while some people might fear and hate mages, every single
>>mage has two parents, neigbors, family and friends.
>
>Two parents, friends, neighbours??? What about the people born today of
>a single mother in the ghettos, who no nothing except the gangs they
>grow up with... Are you saying that a mage will never be born here?
>Look at modern day housing projects and high rise apartments. How many
>people do you honestly believe know their neighbours? And how many lock
>themselves behind shuttered doors never speaking to anyone, becuase
>they're frightened, private, or simply don't know how to meet people.
>Real Life is not "Cheers" or BEverly Hills 90210, where everybody and
>their brother/sister knows everybody else.

Well, biologically, I think almost everyone has two parents:)
As for the rest, many people might not know all their neighbors, but, come
on, you can't really mean that the majority of people don't know _somebody_
-- work, local bar hangout, something...

>By your definition above, everybody is friendly, and there are loads of
>people who know each other and are "buddies". I only know one person in
>my street. My neighbour.. that's it. I have no idea who the rest are,
>what they do for a living, or whether they're even normal people. I
>have a suspicion about a couple of them.

I only meant everybody knows somebody, it doesn't have to be the neighbor,
and it doesn't have to be espeically buddy-buddy to still prevent hate, all
you need is a grudging realization that the person is an "okay guy, ain't
never caused a stir," etc. That won't always be the case, but it will
sometimes.

>
>>there won't be that many cases of
>>people who are not already aquainted with the magical personally to come
>>into contact with the actual workings of magic.
>
>OK, I'm only going to say one thing here.
>
>READ THE SOURCEBOOKS. They state... MAGIC IS RARE! The majority of the
>population will _never_ have seen a mage, let alone real magic. Their
>only contact with it is on the TRID!

I think you misunderstood me. What I said was, most people WON'T have any
contact with magic UNLESS they know a mage personally. If there are mages
around, somebody must know them, right? Some people must have some
experience with magic, but, I agree that the majority won't have direct
personal experience.

>
>Like people aren't motivated by fear and hatred towards those of a
>different colour, or sexual inclination, or political belief or
>religious belief?
>
>Think about it, please.

Yeah, but that hatred exists towards a group of people who either look
obviously different (race), or do something despicable (religion/sex to the
-phobic). Mages are neither of those. They aren't a country or race of
people, and they aren't noticeably different to sight. They are capable of
doing more, but they are hard to categorize and lump together as one group.

Further, is it a majority of people hate a particular race or religion or
country. No, not without good historical cause. Religions and countries
develop 100's of years of conflict, thus motivating the hate. Bigots
exsist for whatever reason, but would you say that a majority of people
hate those that are different? I don't think so, some of that exsists, but
a majority?
What motivates a majority of people's hate vs magic. Distrust, a little
fear, maybe. But hate? People might hate tribal groups and NAN and their
shamans, but not by extension all mages. Perhaps the media might stir up
some hate as the result of some heinous magical crime, but then the AAAT
will fight that with their own PR...


>
>Magic is only another newer strange thing Is a female who can cast
>spells, a Mage... Or a WITCH!... Remember the Witch Hunts? That was
>from religious belief, paranoia, and fear of the unknown. Persecution
>of magic in Shadowrun would not be a novelty, it would not be strange,
>it would be based on historical fact.

That was an isolated occurence, among HIGHLY superstitious people, fed by a
group of teenage girls who gloried in the power they were exerting by
crying witch. It didn't last, and didn't spread far. I doubt it could
overtake a large population, and certainly not a modern one. And even if
that kind of hysteria was present, it would never exsist in the actual
court judicial system as it did then.
>
>Magic is associated by many with Witchcraft and Demonology, Satanism
>etc. Are attitudes really going to change as quickly as you say? They
>haven't changed for a few centuries in Real Life, Shadowrun, although a
>fantasy game, has a massive amount of elements taken from Real Life <tm>
>And it's been 40 years, not centuries.

Well, the Pope officially delared magic and spirit summoning to be an
expression of nature, and therefore neither good nor bad. Other religions
treat it differently, but none fully condemn it, according to Awakenings.
So, which religion is persecuting mages and burning them?

>
>Remember the racial riots when Orks and elves expressed. Remember the
>"final solution" offered by the President of the UCAS? Remember the
>results of VITAS, UGE, The Crash, The Great Ghost Dance, etc.
>
>Remember the riots in Los Angeles during the trial of a certain
>gentleman. Did the people do that for fun? Or as an angry outburst
>against what they saw as a poor judgement.

Don't go there. There was a little violence, the beating of a white man,
broadcast on TV, then the media spread the story that the police weren't
arresting any looters. Then the looters really came out in force and had
some fun, getting as much free stuff as they could. I truly doubt that the
majority were motivated by other than greed.

>
>What is the likelihood of that occuring in Shadowrun?
>
>Food riots in New York, etc etc. Mages are valuable, the corporations
>want them, the government wants them, they treat them like gods, and let
>others starve and die from disease and all the other problems associated
>with the barrens, which are no different to the African townships of
>today.

Why would this specifically target out mages? This is a class issue, and
would simply stir up anger against corp types, including corp mages, but by
no means specific to them. It makes no sense in the context of this
discussion.

>
>OK, total population persecution of Mages, is never likely to match the
>lunacy of the Salem Witch Trials, but...
>
>People are scared of the unknown, whether that is rational or not is
>immaterial. They simply are. And to the majority of people, they would
>have NO understanding of magic, therefore, they would inately mistrust
>it, be nervous of it, be wary of the person who can use it.
>
>Does anyone know the true power of magic? It destroyed a civilisation.
>Two civilisations in fact - sort of.

Oops, not knowledge of any character in SR, is it?
>
>Think about it... Please. :)
>
>Do you really think that Magic is suddenly going to make a totally
>unreasonable world, that reacts in extreme ways, suddenly reasonable?
>
>Is Shadowrun a "reasonable" future, or an extreme future?
>
>No. You won't have huge lynch mobs hunting down mages. No, you might
>not have a repeat of the Salem Witch Trials. But people will be
>irrationally scared of magic. Magic is not as prevelant as say, donut
>shops today. It's more like Fort Knox. Unique, and just a little
>strange.

Agreed, magic will be unusual to most, but I don't thing the majority will
be motivated to anger hate and violence. Some might, but most will simply
distrust magic, but not really think about.

Here is a major flaw in the hate of magic argument:
If magic is so extremely rare, how is it even an issue to most people? If
they never see it, or hear about it except on the trid shows, how will they
be motivated to fear or hate it. Hell, they may barely believe it can do
anything much at all. Your arguments require that the populace be aware of
the power of magic, and be in awe of it and fear it. Yet, if magic is
basically a mystery to most, they won't think of it with other than some
degree of distrust, I think. Only those who have a personal issue with
magic (the brother of the woman who was mind controlled and raped) will
really truly be motivated to hate and violence. The rest, won't care.
Besides, if magic and mages is so rare, it must be a very rare occurence in
deed for a mage to go wild and abuse and or kill.

And, to head off the, but one guy in the UK shot up a bunch of kids and
look what happened:

Guns are not the same as magic. Virtually anyone can pick up a gun and
kill. No one can pick up a mage and kill (except for very large trolls).
Mages themselves have power, but that power can't really be controlled the
same way that guns can. Mages can achieve power totally on their own, guns
can't be formed out of thin air with a lot of work or study. The reaction
against guns was not an irrational one. If you reduce the number of guns,
you reduce peoples access to guns, and you reduce criminals access to guns.
There will be as a direct consequence fewer deaths caused by guns.

I'm truly curious, what are the statistics for gun violence before and
after the legislation passed in the UK? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would
expect that it decreased.


>
>Scenarios for you.
<snip scenario>
>
>End scenario.
>
>Is that so strange. Is that sooooo unlikely.

Well, not really, except it makes magic out to be much more rare than I
think magic is. I have a feeling that many large hospitals in large cities
employ magic healers, and that it wouldn't be unheard of at all.
Therefore, Ben and Dianne wouldn't be special except as a local resource as
opposed to having to go out to <insert large nearby town>. Also, I've
already stated that if some colleges have magical departments (UCLA, MIT&M,
Texas, etc etc), then almost all will, because that is how college works.

Finally, what is the point? The people were glad of Dianne, and then when
they realized what she was capable of, a little frightened. However, they
also saw Ben splattered, so they know these mage types aren't invincible.
They may be a little distrustful at first, but if they liked her, I don't
think they'll stop. And if the sheriff gets capped again, they may be damn
glad she is able to handle the situation.

I'm not arguing for the total universal acceptance and love of magic, I'm
just saying that I think that there won't be widespread hate and fear.
There will be distrust, and pockets of hate, like the scarred man from NY.

--DT


>--
>Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
>Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
>Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
>http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
>
>
Message no. 70
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:02:11 +0000
Mat Breton wrote:
> The problem with lie-detectors/truth spells and the like is that you
> only shift the source of veracity, from the speaker, to a (hopefully)
> objective third-party.
>
> Now, suppose we have a high-publicity trial -- OJ, let's say -- and the
> court-appointed mage *knew*, just knew for damn sure that the jury was
> hooked - or possibly one was bribed*. And here he is, in a position
> where, instead of applying a Detect Truth spell, a simple Control Mind
> would swing the verdict by causing our witness to say something
> different.
>
> He knows he won't be caught. He's a mage, remember? - he's already
> scanned the attorney crowd, and they're all norms; there's a mage
> bailiff, to be sure, but most of the time she's in Astral, scouting the
> outside of the court building to make sure one outside tries anything
> tricky. Two of the three elementals guarding the court room are bound
> to him. Anyone watching the trial on MatrixCourt will only get trideo
> feed, not Astral vibes.
>
> One spell. One brief moment.
>
> See now why they might not be allowed?

This argument is interesting, since it implies two things.
First, that magical security in courtrooms is abysmal, and that
a mage would have free reign in a courtroom, wether he was
court appointed or not, if he was just a little bit competent.

The second is that the justice system will not use such a tool
because it assumes it will be abused. This has, as far as I know,
never happened before. 'valid' reasons for not using tools, as in the
case of lie detectors, is that they can identify truth as false. Thus
their use is of limited legal value. If they sometimes failed
to detect falsehood would be a far less grave mistake, as
long as the priority is to not jail (or execute) an innocent person.

A logical conclusion of the second argument would be that we couldn't
have judges, or a jury, since they might try to influence the court
proceedings. A court cannot work that way.

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 71
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:21:28 -0500
At 12:02 PM 11/19/97 -0500, you wrote:

>
>Exactly. Though I will say there are differences in approach to government
>in Britain and in the U.S. In Britain, for instance, who runs the
>television media? Gov't. Who runs medical care? The gov't. The British
>government has a lot more... acceptance of controls and limitations being
>placed on the public for their good. And I'll say that people might even
>be safer there because firearms _are_ illegal outside of shooting ranges,
>etc. It's just not an American approach to the problem, the American theory
>on gov't (much molested and stretched though it may be) being that there
>should be laws preventing harms, and outside of that, the government should
>stay out of the way of the people to do whatever they wish. If you're not
>actually harming someone, you shouldn't be bothered by the law. Owning a
>gun doesn't hurt anyone, and might protect you from someone who has a gun
>and intent to harm you. Now, going out and threatening someone with your
>gun is a crime, you're violating someone's rights, and the law steps in and
>punishes you. That's how government is supposed to work in the U.S.
>Neither approach is wrong, but they represent two different mindsets.

This is a very good point. It is why guns are still legal in the US, and
it is why magic wouldn't be made illegal (though it doesn't rule out
registration, it probably would rule out ritual sample taking).

--DT
Message no. 72
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:56:09 -0800
(Example snipped)

> This argument is interesting, since it implies two things.
> First, that magical security in courtrooms is abysmal, and that
> a mage would have free reign in a courtroom, wether he was
> court appointed or not, if he was just a little bit competent.

A) My example wasn't meant to be the norm - I don't think the OJ Simpson
even vaguely resembled a normal court case - but rather an extreme
circumstance.

<Avenger>
Remember, it only takes one nut...
</Avenger>

B) Given that Lone Star has enough trouble getting mages into security,
it seems that there would be even less in the court system (bailiffs are
paid much less than policemen).

Presumably, of course, the mage will be under heavy scrutiny, but I'd
believe most of that would be mundane (ie, you frack up, we put you in
jail for fifteen years for perjury, and you never work legally again)
than magical in nature.

It all depends on how you portray mages, of course. Like most security,
however, it's most likely oriented toward keeping intruders out, than
someone on "the inside" perpetrating a crime.

Things get even more interesting when you have expensive lawyers
bringing in pet mages: Can you really expect him to report anything
other than what's in his client's interest? Given that the results of,
say, a Mind Probe are known only to the client and the mage, I can't see
"magic-bolstered truth" being treated as much more than a character
witness (if that) in court.

Can you think of a better method?

> The second is that the justice system will not use such a tool
> because it assumes it will be abused. This has, as far as I know,
> never happened before. 'valid' reasons for not using tools, as in the
> case of lie detectors, is that they can identify truth as false. Thus
> their use is of limited legal value. If they sometimes failed
> to detect falsehood would be a far less grave mistake, as
> long as the priority is to not jail (or execute) an innocent person.

Um, Rune, you may want to check that sentence, because you seem to be
saying that a court *will* use any instrument regardless of possibility
for abuse.

Terribly wrong: otherwise we might all face stocks, brands, and the iron
maiden one day, all in an effort to assist testimony.

BTW, polygraphs *aren't* court-admissible, although any number of
private corporations do allow for their use. Lie detectors *can* fail
to detect lies; and the methodology behind them is not accepted as
appropriate by all.

Truth is not what is sought for in court: guilt is. Keep that in mind.

> A logical conclusion of the second argument would be that we couldn't
> have judges, or a jury, since they might try to influence the court
> proceedings. A court cannot work that way.

Um, no. A jury *can* perjure, and a jury can be wrong. However,
because there are twelve of them, and because they are under scrutiny,
its assumed they will approach the truth -- the same basis as democracy,
really.

Judges have more flexibility in exercising discretion: perhaps you've
heard of the Louise Woodward case, in which the judge reduced the
verdict despite a jury conviction (and sentenced reduced from c. 15
years to time-served, less than a year).

Similarly, in an historical Boston case, a judge convicted two Italians,
Sacco and Vanzetti, despite a rather kangaroo-ish trial. (I've read the
transcript).

In both cases, there was considerable public outcry. To have acted
against popular opinion might mean the end of furthering his career (ie,
no Chief Justice of the Court for you, bad boy) but it's very unlikely
to force a judge off the bench (ie, here, go process small claims for
the next ten to fifteen).

I'd like to hear what you think the court system in 2058 would be like.



-Mb
Message no. 73
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:11:11 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971120125844.006dd3ac@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>I only meant everybody knows somebody, it doesn't have to be the neighbor,
>and it doesn't have to be espeically buddy-buddy to still prevent hate, all
>you need is a grudging realization that the person is an "okay guy, ain't
>never caused a stir," etc. That won't always be the case, but it will
>sometimes.

Lots of people in Little Rock in 1954 knew "coloured folks", or at least
saw them on a daily basis. Didn't prevent an awful lot of hate.

>Yeah, but that hatred exists towards a group of people who either look
>obviously different (race), or do something despicable (religion/sex to the
>-phobic). Mages are neither of those.

The magic that stole half the United States and gave it to the sand
niggers isn't "despicable"?

How many Germans in 1933 thought that the Versailles Treaty was actually
a fair and decent piece of legislation, because Germany had clearly been
defeated in the Great War?

And how many believed that they had been stabbed in the back by (fill in
the blank - by Communists, by Jews, by American bankers...) and that
Germany could have fought on and won.


There will be similar feelings in the UCAS. Forty years? Trivia. Bosnia
blew up fifty years after World War Two, and most of that fighting was
about Chetnik atrocities and Titoist massacres... those parts that
weren't about the Battle of Kosovo in 16whenever. Northern Ireland? Dig
a little and you're back to Cromwell and the Battle of the Boyne.

You don't eliminate prejudices like that in centuries, let alone in
decades, and magic is what the NAN had and the US didn't.

>They aren't a country or race of
>people, and they aren't noticeably different to sight.

Neither are Jews. Didn't prevent the Final Solution.

>They are capable of
>doing more, but they are hard to categorize and lump together as one group.

Again... tell that to Hitler when he tried to exterminate Jews. Or to
Senator McCarthy while he was pursuing suspected Communists.

> Further, is it a majority of people hate a particular race or religion or
>country. No, not without good historical cause. Religions and countries
>develop 100's of years of conflict, thus motivating the hate.

Or you get a short sharp act of conquest. Like NAN seizing the western
United States.

>What motivates a majority of people's hate vs magic. Distrust, a little
>fear, maybe. But hate? People might hate tribal groups and NAN and their
>shamans, but not by extension all mages. Perhaps the media might stir up
>some hate as the result of some heinous magical crime, but then the AAAT
>will fight that with their own PR...

Yep. One month, nobody's too bothered about magic. Another time, cast a
spell and you're in trouble, people want you to leave _now_. Some places
will hate mages no matter what, others will never be particularly
hostile, but the centre will swing from acceptance to dislike.

>Here is a major flaw in the hate of magic argument:
>If magic is so extremely rare, how is it even an issue to most people?

Because it's changed the world. Magicians destroyed Los Alamos. Puyallup
used to be a nice place until magician buried it in lava and ash. Magic
causes massive natural eruptions that kill thousands.

Magic can read your mind. It can kill you. It can make you do things you
don't want to do, force your body to be someone else's puppet. Okay, it
can heal people, but only if they pay enough money in many cases.

Read the news carefully for a few days and note the occurence of
"knives". How many stories involving surgeons operating to save life,
people cutting their meat and vegetables to feed their families,
craftsmen earning a living? Fewer than "knife-wielding maniac", "robbed
at knifepoint", "stabbed to death"...

The news media being what it is, most people will hear more about
magical crime than about magic being used constructively. They'll form
opinions accordingly, especially if the only magician they know of is
that arrogant bastard from Company HQ who came down one time to sort out
some problem, his damn _suit_ alone cost more than I make in a month...

>If
>they never see it, or hear about it except on the trid shows, how will they
>be motivated to fear or hate it. Hell, they may barely believe it can do
>anything much at all.

In the trideo shows and in history it's almost all-powerful. The US and
Canada didn't cede half their territory to a power that could "hardly do
anything", they'd learned that magic could cause massive disruption.

>Your arguments require that the populace be aware of
>the power of magic, and be in awe of it and fear it. Yet, if magic is
>basically a mystery to most, they won't think of it with other than some
>degree of distrust, I think. Only those who have a personal issue with
>magic (the brother of the woman who was mind controlled and raped) will
>really truly be motivated to hate and violence. The rest, won't care.

Hate and violence, no. Fear and distrust, yes. Magic has achieved huge
changes in the world, people know it has power. They don't understand
its limits (they'd be less afraid if they did) and they usually have few
reasons to trust its practicioners.

>Besides, if magic and mages is so rare, it must be a very rare occurence in
>deed for a mage to go wild and abuse and or kill.

Over here it's rare for someone to go mad with a firearm. Only twice in
ten years, in fact. Didn't lessen the public fury in both cases.

>And, to head off the, but one guy in the UK shot up a bunch of kids and
>look what happened:
>
>Guns are not the same as magic. Virtually anyone can pick up a gun and
>kill. No one can pick up a mage and kill (except for very large trolls).
>Mages themselves have power, but that power can't really be controlled the
>same way that guns can. Mages can achieve power totally on their own, guns
>can't be formed out of thin air with a lot of work or study. The reaction
>against guns was not an irrational one. If you reduce the number of guns,
>you reduce peoples access to guns, and you reduce criminals access to guns.
> There will be as a direct consequence fewer deaths caused by guns.

If you reduce the number of mages walking around free and uncontrolled,
you will reduce the crime committed by magicians.

After one magical atrocity, this argument will be used _against_ you:
mages can achieve power totally on their own, unregistrered, unknown,
uncontrolled. They _must_ be kept in check. If it saves the life of even
one child...

>I'm truly curious, what are the statistics for gun violence before and
>after the legislation passed in the UK? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would
>expect that it decreased.

Unchanged. 95% of firearms crime was committed with illegally owned
weapons before the handgun ban. Of the remaining 5%, the majority
involved shotguns, air weapons and replicas/imitations.

Too early to say with absolute proof, but there was so little crime
committed by legitimate handgun owners that eliminating them can have
almost no effect on the statistics. That was certainly the case with the
ban on semi-automatic rifles ten years ago: no discernible effect on
crime rates.

>Well, not really, except it makes magic out to be much more rare than I
>think magic is. I have a feeling that many large hospitals in large cities
>employ magic healers, and that it wouldn't be unheard of at all.

Magical healing is for the _dying_ in a few cases, and more often for
those who can pay extra to heal faster from surgery. (Three weeks bed
rest, or one spell and go home the same day! Only a ten thousand nuyen
premium! How much is _your_ time worth?"

>Therefore, Ben and Dianne wouldn't be special except as a local resource as
>opposed to having to go out to <insert large nearby town>.

How much does healthcare cost in the UCAS? How many ordinary citizens
have decent health insurance? What does it cost just to visit a doctor
in the US today?

Ben and Dianne are a _cheap_ alternative to conventional medicine.

>Finally, what is the point? The people were glad of Dianne,

And resentful when she was too tired to heal them.

>I'm not arguing for the total universal acceptance and love of magic, I'm
>just saying that I think that there won't be widespread hate and fear.
>There will be distrust, and pockets of hate, like the scarred man from NY.

Hate is too strong. But it's a very unwise move to overtly display magic
in my game. Think of it only in these terms... you are the only magician
many observers will have seen in the flesh, casting a spell. They _will_
remember you. If they later see your face on a WANTED poster, next to
the one of your friend who "moved like Teflon on ice, so fast and slick
it wasn't true", they _will_ make the connection and call the cops for
that reward.

Being overt with power is a bad move, whether the power is magical or
mundane.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 74
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:17:13 +0000
>>*SNIP* courts are then with poor astral security.
>*SNIP* courts are with poor astral security.
> Can you think of a better method?
See the end of this post. I would think that the justice system would
have to do one of three things - have one mage and trust him, three
and trust *them*, or none. All three options has significant and
obvious drawbacks. (I: Can he really be trusted? II: Three mages at
once is hideously expensive. III: Leaves free reign for any intruding
mage.).


> > The second is that the justice system will not use such a tool
> > because it assumes it will be abused. This has, as far as I know,
> > never happened before. 'valid' reasons for not using tools, as in the
> > case of lie detectors, is that they can identify truth as false. Thus
> > their use is of limited legal value. If they sometimes failed
> > to detect falsehood would be a far less grave mistake, as
> > long as the priority is to not jail (or execute) an innocent person.
>
> Um, Rune, you may want to check that sentence, because you seem to be
> saying that a court *will* use any instrument regardless of possibility
> for abuse.

Yeah, that's what I say. And nothing else. You add that I mean they
will use any instrument based *ONLY* on that citeria, which I don't.
(Making torture legal, etc, by your examples *snipped*).
Of course other values enters into it. I only say the potential for
abuse doesn't. In fact, your examples *SUPPORT* this argument - you
cite a number of cases where people (judges in particular) are given
opportunities to change the outcome of a case. This is an opportunity
given them *DESPITE* the possibility of abuse. Of course, the justice
system isn't exactly stupid - it puts safeguards in to reduce the
chance of lying or manipulation, but not more. (Making perjury
criminal, court decisions may be appealed, co-judges,
large juries, etc.).

> I'd like to hear what you think the court system in 2058 would be like.
I do not know the way it will be, but I can imagine several ways it
might go that might be interesting for a shadowrun session.

'The Game' - courts are simply the playground of the two lawyers. The
judge is the referee, the jury the goal. Right and wrong doesn't
enter into it, just who has the better lawyer. The courts would be
... much the way they are in some countries today, in fact, only more
so. Wether analyze truth would be allowed or not would depend solely
on the arguing of the lawyers and what experts they could put on the
stand. As is obvious, the richest guys almost always win, except
against someone equally rich, in which case justice might be done.

'Street judges' - police officers are given some (limited) ability to
act as instant judges. This would be even more likely if someone were
to develop a justice skillchip for use by cops - the skillchip would
force them to follow the letter of the law, giving little potential
for abuse. All their decisions would be reviewed by a board.
(Everything done leading up to a conviction would be recorded.).
This is a situation similar to 'judge dredd', which might come around
by cybernetic enhancement of the officers. It has huge inherent
flaws, of course.


'dark justice' - due to increased criminal activity, the court system
is streamlined for efficiency with less concern for personal rights.
Juries are dispensed with, leaving the judge as both judge and jury.
Given cybernetic or magical access to information and cerebral
enhancements and whatnot, they are expected to have the necessary
competence and safeguards. This (esp. the cyber) would lead to most
cases being tried to the letter of the law, and possibly less to its
spirit. Also, wrongful convictions would, or could, flourish.

'Blind justice' - through use of professional juries (A juror is
installed with a device that, if the judge says, 'the jury is to
disregard this' - it actually does, and also removes prior
influence) improved court procedures (unknown) the courts could
have the illlusion, of justice. Wether these measures would actually
work, is a matter of taste.


BTW, in the Roman Senate, a demon's(lion's?) head was in the wall
next to the speaker's stand. Legend said, if he had his hand in its
mouth and told a lie, it would be bitten off.

BTWII, wouldn't an anchored 'analyze truth' spell embedded in the
witness chair linked to trigger some effect or other work around the
problem of a mage partial to the case?
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 75
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:26:53 +0000
On 20 Nov 97 at 3:09, Avenger wrote:
[snip 5th ammendment]
> Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the Fifth
> ammendment, once taken must be adhered to completely for all
> questioning, not selected questions.
[snip example]
Wouldn't that take even the last bit of sense out of the ammendment? As
far as I understood it so far, it is meant to protect the witness and
offer him/her a way to appear before court without the fear to have all
small, possibly not even related to the case-at-hand, crimes shown.
When forced to relay on the 5th ammentment, the witness or accused is
vitrually worthless for the trial.

[snip]
> > Travellers law #1: Never get arrested in another country.
>
> And that's a FACT!
Sascha's law #<somewhere among the first 20>: Never get arrested
anywhere.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | 'Real stupidity |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| beats artificial |
| \___ __/ | | intelligence every |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | time.' |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | - M. Ridcully |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary ----(T.Pratchett)+
Message no. 76
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:19:22 -0800
> > Can you think of a better method?

> See the end of this post. I would think that the justice system would
> have to do one of three things - have one mage and trust him, three
> and trust *them*, or none. All three options has significant and
> obvious drawbacks. (I: Can he really be trusted? II: Three mages at
> once is hideously expensive. III: Leaves free reign for any intruding
> mage.).

Honestly, I think they're likeliest to go for 'none at all', for two
reasons:

a) The judicial system is hideously slow to accept new developments.
Polygraphs were invented in (?) the 1920s, but they're not universally
accepted; even DNA tracing is suspect in many cases.

b) It's hideously expensive, even for a single mage, given the large
number of cases on docket, and the number of cases which *won't* require
magic. You could, conceivably, have several days with courses in which
the court mage isn't needed, but I doubt he'll happily take an
unscheduled vacation.

OTOH, I can see mages as a part of a law firm, or perhaps even a
separate firm unto themselves; it's the equivalent of calling in a lab
to do DNA testing on blood traces -- it'll happen, but only in the
extremely rare cases. And *then* you can involve all the stringencies a
GM may desire, because the entire case will be under the highest
scrutiny. And, of course, it may very well get appealed -- but then
it's the law firms problem to fix, not the courts.

> > > The second is that the justice system will not use such a tool
> > > because it assumes it will be abused. This has, as far as I know,
> > > never happened before. 'valid' reasons for not using tools, as in the
> > > case of lie detectors, is that they can identify truth as false. Thus
> > > their use is of limited legal value. If they sometimes failed
> > > to detect falsehood would be a far less grave mistake, as
> > > long as the priority is to not jail (or execute) an innocent person.

> > Um, Rune, you may want to check that sentence, because you seem to be
> > saying that a court *will* use any instrument regardless of possibility
> > for abuse.

> Yeah, that's what I say. And nothing else. You add that I mean they
> will use any instrument based *ONLY* on that citeria, which I don't.
> (Making torture legal, etc, by your examples *snipped*).

See my comment earlier, about how quickly courts adapt -- they *are*
bureaucracies, remember.

> Of course other values enters into it. I only say the potential for
> abuse doesn't. In fact, your examples *SUPPORT* this argument - you
> cite a number of cases where people (judges in particular) are given
> opportunities to change the outcome of a case. This is an opportunity
> given them *DESPITE* the possibility of abuse. Of course, the justice
> system isn't exactly stupid - it puts safeguards in to reduce the
> chance of lying or manipulation, but not more. (Making perjury
> criminal, court decisions may be appealed, co-judges,
> large juries, etc.).

Yup -- they're mundanes. They can be regulated by the population at
large. OTOH, mages can only be regulated by a fair fraction of
society. While a mundane judge may have discretion left in his hands, a
magically-active judge may be ballyhooed off the podium: all it takes is
one relatively famous name to say the judge cast a spell.

Safeguards can be applied to mundanes pretty easily. Less so mages.

> > I'd like to hear what you think the court system in 2058 would be like.
> I do not know the way it will be, but I can imagine several ways it
> might go that might be interesting for a shadowrun session.

> 'The Game' - courts are simply the playground of the two lawyers. The
> judge is the referee, the jury the goal. Right and wrong doesn't
> enter into it, just who has the better lawyer. The courts would be
> ... much the way they are in some countries today, in fact, only more
> so. Wether analyze truth would be allowed or not would depend solely
> on the arguing of the lawyers and what experts they could put on the
> stand. As is obvious, the richest guys almost always win, except
> against someone equally rich, in which case justice might be done.

This, with the exception of the last sentence, seems a reasonable
extension of the world today. The American judicial system is .not.
Napoleanic (in which the judge is an active participant in the trial,
and the search is for the truth, not justice).

> 'Street judges' - police officers are given some (limited) ability to
> act as instant judges. This would be even more likely if someone were
> to develop a justice skillchip for use by cops - the skillchip would
> force them to follow the letter of the law, giving little potential
> for abuse. All their decisions would be reviewed by a board.
> (Everything done leading up to a conviction would be recorded.).
> This is a situation similar to 'judge dredd', which might come around
> by cybernetic enhancement of the officers. It has huge inherent
> flaws, of course.

R.A. Heinlein would like this one....

> 'dark justice' - due to increased criminal activity, the court system
> is streamlined for efficiency with less concern for personal rights.
> Juries are dispensed with, leaving the judge as both judge and jury.
> Given cybernetic or magical access to information and cerebral
> enhancements and whatnot, they are expected to have the necessary
> competence and safeguards. This (esp. the cyber) would lead to most
> cases being tried to the letter of the law, and possibly less to its
> spirit. Also, wrongful convictions would, or could, flourish.

> 'Blind justice' - through use of professional juries (A juror is
> installed with a device that, if the judge says, 'the jury is to
> disregard this' - it actually does, and also removes prior
> influence) improved court procedures (unknown) the courts could
> have the illlusion, of justice. Wether these measures would actually
> work, is a matter of taste.

Sounds like 13 judges to me. At least the Yaks know who to target
now....

How about:

Media Trials / Jury of Ten Thousand: Trials -- opening statements,
cross-examinations, and so one are all netcast, and anyone (or possible,
anyone who pays a fee? anyone with qualification?) can take part - ask
questions of witnesses, volunteer (?!) as witness, join jury
deliberations and so on. Trials last a fixed time, and executions, of
course, make prime time entertainment.

Spirit Justice: Free spirits are enlisted to determine
guilt/innocence. After all, nearly everything has an Astral echo, and
spirits can watch from *anywhere*. A free spirit is likely (?) to have
no human motivations to be bribed, though they may be seen to make
arbitrary decisions. While this probably wouldn't work on a grand
scale, I could see a neighborhood relying on one.

Which leads us to, of course, the constantly-growing arbitration system:
Wherever a contract exists (between employer/employee, for instance),
'problems' are turned over to inhouse arbitration, rather than the
municipal/federal court system. Given SR corps, *definitely* open to
abuse...



> BTW, in the Roman Senate, a demon's(lion's?) head was in the wall
> next to the speaker's stand. Legend said, if he had his hand in its
> mouth and told a lie, it would be bitten off.

> BTWII, wouldn't an anchored 'analyze truth' spell embedded in the
> witness chair linked to trigger some effect or other work around the
> problem of a mage partial to the case?
Message no. 77
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:00:12 -0500
At 05:56 AM 11/19/97 -0800, you wrote:

>
>Things get even more interesting when you have expensive lawyers
>bringing in pet mages: Can you really expect him to report anything
>other than what's in his client's interest? Given that the results of,
>say, a Mind Probe are known only to the client and the mage, I can't see
>"magic-bolstered truth" being treated as much more than a character
>witness (if that) in court.

Aahh, the infamous "expert witness." People like that get paid huge money,
hundreds of dollars an hour currently. I worked for a company a couple of
summers ago that specialized in testifying on economic issues. Believe me,
someone in this line would _never_ lie. If once caught, they are
completely disgraced and out of work forever, because they are only useful
if they are believeable. They'll always tell the truth as they believe it;
the trick is for the lawyer to find the expert who believes the truth that
benefits his client, or who will cast it in a beneficial light. But, I
really doubt that outright lying would take place, it would mean the loss
of reputation, and usually these expert witnesses are also professors or
related to academia, where again reputation for honesty is a requisite.

--DT
Message no. 78
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:23:09 -0500
IMPERIAL ORDER of the KNIGHTS of the ILLUMINATI

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Fade wrote:

> >>*SNIP* courts are then with poor astral security.
> >*SNIP* courts are with poor astral security.
> > Can you think of a better method?
> See the end of this post. I would think that the justice system would
> have to do one of three things - have one mage and trust him, three
> and trust *them*, or none. All three options has significant and
> obvious drawbacks. (I: Can he really be trusted? II: Three mages at
> once is hideously expensive. III: Leaves free reign for any intruding
> mage.).
>
You assume that all astral security must come from mages present in astral
space. Wards, watchers, astral static spells and an abundance of organic
material, like ivy covering the walls, make magical intrusion difficult,
without requiring the active presence of a mage.
Message no. 79
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:45:04 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-16 07:50:38 EST, trrkt@*****.ONET.PL writes:

>
> So, what about Manipulation spells? You know, Levitate person and
> Fix, or Control Thoughts and Flamebomb?
>
>
Anything that usurps the individual's personal choice is against the law,
though licensing exists in multiple arenas, including the medical and
psychological fields.

Levitate Person? I don't think that is illegal in any form, but if it's used
to pursue a break-in or felony-class offense, it will up the stakes.

-K
Message no. 80
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:46:30 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-16 09:05:46 EST, craigjwjr@*********.net writes:

>
> The grimoir settled the intent part. You can't _not_ intend to
hit/
> kill
> someone with a manabolt.
>
I had a strange thought (yes, I know, I am 5 days behind on mail), what if
someone played around the persons mind using Influence, BTL's, PCPIC, Control
Thoughts etcera....to make the magician in question "mistake" one spell for
another? Flip the mental triggers as it were?

-K
Message no. 81
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:50:21 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-16 11:50:29 EST, trrkt@*****.ONET.PL writes:

>
> Actually, Mind Probing is easy, given enough time. The problem is,
> Constitution outlaws it, doesn't it? That is, you can't just cast the
> Decrease Willpower -4, Overstimulation, and then whack the mage with
> a Mind Probe.
> I mean, it's illegal. There is the Fourth Amendment (is it the
> fourth? I'm not sure)....
>
Please remember that in the Sioux Nation though, Mind Probe is NOT illegal
and is something used in courts of law (it's expeditious).

-K
Message no. 82
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 18:57:02 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-18 08:09:32 EST, trrkt@*****.ONET.PL writes:

> People talking - yes, but truth spells or mechanical equivalents are
> an infringement of the Fifth Amendment. (It is even mentioned with
> spells like Compel Truth).
>
Yes, and as I mentioned, not in every Nation. Sioux is one of those to be
wary of, and I believe that "Compel Truth" might be an infringement but
"Detect Truth/Lie" is not.

-K
Message no. 83
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:30:56 -0800
Jeremiah Stevens wrote:
>
> IMPERIAL ORDER of the KNIGHTS of the ILLUMINATI
>
> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Fade wrote:
>
> > >>*SNIP* courts are then with poor astral security.
> > >*SNIP* courts are with poor astral security.
> > > Can you think of a better method?
> > See the end of this post. I would think that the justice system would
> > have to do one of three things - have one mage and trust him, three
> > and trust *them*, or none. All three options has significant and
> > obvious drawbacks. (I: Can he really be trusted? II: Three mages at
> > once is hideously expensive. III: Leaves free reign for any intruding
> > mage.).

> You assume that all astral security must come from mages present in astral
> space. Wards, watchers, astral static spells and an abundance of organic
> material, like ivy covering the walls, make magical intrusion difficult,
> without requiring the active presence of a mage.

To repeat my concern (which Rune was only responding to) -- most of the
concern won't be toward random "Astral terrorism", it'll be from a
fraudulent mage taking the stand. Dual-natured ivy, wards, and probably
watchers won't faze that any: the mage is *supposed* to be there if he's
taking the stand.

OTOH, there would be lots of concern about the mage on the stand: what
if he botches the spell? Someone can watch the spell, analyze its spell
signature and make sure it's the right spell -- but they can't be sure
of the results at all.

Possibilities?

* Ritual Detection sorcery that involves plaintiff, defendant, and
witness, or at least respected parties of all three sides. Probably
have to include the judge and (probably) mundane jury as well, which
leads us to:

* Mindlink! Hey, why not -- now you get to see the images the mage
casting the Mind Probe receives, and everything should be legit.

But, of course, it can be construed as an invasion of privacy, and can
be refused (and, indeed, some improtant trials have swung on a witness
who refused to speak) and even if allowed the results can't be ensured
-- the mage could botch, or simply fail, or worse (evil-GM) things could
happen. I suppose edges like Poor Astral Contact (or whatever it was)
and Magical Resistance would also make this much tougher.

Not to mention random Astral terrorism. :)


-Mb

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Magic and the Law, 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!