Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:53:06 +0000
On 19 Nov 97, Avenger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

<a lot of liberal snipping done below>

> 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.

Well, the problem is, your average runner is SINless. Why do they
need ANY registration?

> 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)

NONONONO. It was pointed out here that noticing powerful spells if
fairly easy, according to the rules from BBB:
Perception TN: (Magic - Force) * 2
So, a Magic 6 mage casting a F6 manabolt is TN2 to notice.
Magic 6 mage casting a F1 fireball is TN 10 to notice, but what's a
Force 1 Fireball gonna do?

> 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."

Ehh. You're quoting out of context. This "decision to observe the
spell" applies when mage tries to scan the spell itself for the spell
signature.
Noticing that the guy over there, near the stuffer shack,
is casting a spell uses the procedure from BBB.

That's why all those FASA pictures have their mages with funky
mistical effects courtesy of ILM. ;P

<snip>

> 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.

Yes. One in a hundred. Now, thing about it - cybered people with
augmented reflexes are also rare. Yet nobody complains about the
group with Wired sammies.
Shadowrunning tends to attract magically active and heavily cybered.
The rest is taken care by by the attrition.

> > 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.

Uhhh. Spellcasting IS visible. And you can't make known, "carried"
spells visible... (How? Small spell "icons" hovering around the
mage's head? <grin>)

> >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

See BBB, page XXX (;P), in Magic section. Noticing spellcasting gives
the TN for Perception test, and "the GM may modify the TN by -2 if
the observer is a mage himself". Ergo, the Perception test for TN 2
for noticing that F6 Manabolt can be made by mundanes.
<snip>

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

<sarcasm mode on>
Yeah. Sure. Smart people need only cash, and that's their only
motivation. They work just for money. They never want vengeance, or
anything like this. They never want to change the world (while
helping themselves, too ;P). They LIKE being told what to do and how
to do it, and when to do it, especially the shamans among them.
</sarcasm mode off>

> 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?

'Cause he hates corps? 'Cause he values his personal freedom? 'Cause
he needs the money and refuses to work for soulless corporations?
'Cause his totem told him to? 'Cause...
The reasons are many.. Read some quotes in the Archetypes section of
the BBB... ;>

> 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)

Well, so you're playing a low-cash games. Doesn't mean everybody
does. What's the "standard" cash award for runs in FASA-published
adventures? Do you get 3000¥ for Queen euphoria, or one of the
Harlequin's Adventures?

The truth is, shadowrunning DOES pay. Maybe not in your campaign, or
in Paul's, but in some it definitively does.

<snip>
> 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.

So, do your sammies have permits for their Assault Rifles? They
don't have Assault Rifles? That's OK by me, I can play in low-level,
gritty campaigns as well as in guns-a-blazin-cinematic-action-heroes
type campaigns.
But looking at the Archetypes in BBB, FASA prefers the guns-a-blazin
type. Look at all the gear Archetypes have. LMG Valiant. Get a permit
for that... ;P

<ka-snippa>


Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bea=
r/mike; FIAWOL
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)=
/House Scholae Palatinae
Don't just DO something,STAND THERE!
Message no. 2
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:55:51 +0000
In article <199711190952.KAA02931@*****.onet.pl>, "Leszek Karlik, aka
Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL> waffled & burbled about Noticing
Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
>On 19 Nov 97, Avenger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
>writing:
>
><a lot of liberal snipping done below>

<grin>

>> 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.
>
>Well, the problem is, your average runner is SINless. Why do they
>need ANY registration?

Firearms are restricted, they have a penal code attached that affects
their availability and the judicial conditions if caught with one.

Cyberware, cyberdecks, every other facet of Shadowrun is covered by a
legality rating that affects how easy it is to get something, how
socially acceptable it is once you've got it, and what the reaction of
the local law enforcement agency is going to be when someone phones them
and reports an incident.

All of the above can be owned legally with a certificate, meaning they
can be carried legally with registration. OK, Runners don't reggister,
but truly, how many players pay for fake SINs.. most if I'm not
mistaken. Fake SIN, of sufficient is paid for it, can open up a doorway
to "normal" society, allowing for licences and registration for firearms
and suchlike.

But not magic... Although the Lone Star Sourcebook goes some way to
saying "this can be done, this can't" there is still no way to actualkly
judge availability and accessibility for spells.

I've seen several comments on this list so far, that state it takes time
to learn a spell, it costs karma to learn a spell, it costs time and
money to quest for a spell. All of which is covered in the system. But
there are no consequences for owning the spell.

Now, I admit there's no way for Law enforcement to judge what is or
isn't owned by a mage, bar searching their property and using another
mage to analyse the formulae and research notes - a lengthy and time
consuming process, but in the case of "caught in the act" probably a
viable one. However, there is nothing to say that a mage can't walk
down Main Street in the middle of a Saturday afternoon, casting
hellblast everywhere he feels like it - provided he doesn't actually
blow anything up, or kill anyone. (Forget drain for a minute) There is
no reason he can't do it. The spell itself, although extremely
powerful, and very dangerous doesn't have a legal consequence. What
would be the reaction of a normal citizen to this?

Well, in my opinion you'd have mass panic, but according to others,
they're so familiar with magic, that it would be simply a mid day
fireworks disply by an accepted and rational member of society. So the
local cop turns to the mage and says "Hey, nice display, mate."...

I don't think so. OK, that's extreme but it helps to illustrate the
point.
>> 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)
>
>NONONONO. It was pointed out here that noticing powerful spells if
>fairly easy, according to the rules from BBB:
>Perception TN: (Magic - Force) * 2
>So, a Magic 6 mage casting a F6 manabolt is TN2 to notice.
>Magic 6 mage casting a F1 fireball is TN 10 to notice, but what's a
>Force 1 Fireball gonna do?

It also states that once cast the spell is gone... No longer
detectable. If the mage is not astrally perceiving. If the opposing
mage is taking time out from dodging bullets, eating his donut,
concentrating on keeping the sec team alive, whatever, and astrally
perceives he might see the spell.

Logic must play a part in this. It can't be a simple. OK, your casting
a spell, which means my NPC mage, who is actually engaged in trying to
fry the Sammie's has a target number to notice it... No, sorry.

If someone is occupied with something, there's a damn good chance theat
they'll miss something else. How many times have you missed something
because you were otherwise occupied? People in Shadowrun aren't
superheroes, and shouldn't be played as if they were. They are ordianry
people, with all the associated problems.

How many cops have been shot, or stabbed because they didn't notice the
perp had a weapon, and didn't see him/her pulling it? Same situation.
The perceiving mage _must_ be watching for precisely this sort of thing.
He/she doesn't just suddenly decide at that time to look at the mage
character - for starters they don't know which one the mage is -
assuming they can see them anyway.

>Ehh. You're quoting out of context. This "decision to observe the
>spell" applies when mage tries to scan the spell itself for the spell
>signature.

Then the person who used the quote on me was also qquoting out of
context? It was used as an example to me, regarding spell detection, in
relation to mages noticing spell casting. I have so far been unable to
check the quote as one of my players has my Awakenings book.

>Noticing that the guy over there, near the stuffer shack,
>is casting a spell uses the procedure from BBB.

The BBB overrules Awakenings? Awakenings was written to expand and
clarrify confusions created by BBB...

>That's why all those FASA pictures have their mages with funky
>mistical effects courtesy of ILM. ;P

But where in the core rules does it state that the funky mystical
effects actually exist? The pictures have that there so that _you_ the
reader can tell which one is the mage... <g>

I follow the piccies, as you may have noticed from other posts on this
subject. But... There is nothing to say it has to be like this. Mages
are the perfect assassin. Silent, invisible, and essentially, unless
you just happen to be looking in the right direction at the right time -
undetectable.

>> having to resort to "extreme measures" to handle it.
>
>Yes. One in a hundred. Now, thing about it - cybered people with
>augmented reflexes are also rare. Yet nobody complains about the
>group with Wired sammies.

Wanna bet. This particular thread concerned magic. If it had been
started by someone with a "Sammie problem" it would have received
similar treatment. There are more guidelines covering the Sammie, but
please, just because I'm nattering on about mages, don't assume that
other aspects of the game don't receive the same treatment from me. :)

>> 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.
>
>Uhhh. Spellcasting IS visible. And you can't make known, "carried"
>spells visible... (How? Small spell "icons" hovering around the
>mage's head? <grin>)

The direct consequence is governed by a legality rating ont he spell.
if it is cast in a situation where people see it or notice it, then the
judicial system has a way of dealing with it.

Now. Assume that a mage throws a fireball at a sec-team. Now, this
time, against my other posts, it's not done to kill, but to terrify.
Themage doesn't kill anybody on this occassion. He has, essentially not
broken any laws. Aside from trespassing (extraterritoriality) he's done
nothing. Yet, he owns, and has cast a spell of extreme destructive
capabilities. Get away from force drain and success dice for a moment.
It was a fireball... Everybody shrugs their shoulders - hell he didn't
do any harm - he wasn't on UCAS soil - so, frag it. I don't like that
resolution. But there's no guidelines, except for the vagueries of the
Lone Star book If the GM doesn't own the LS book, what's he to do?

You should have gathered by now, from the other messages that I have a
way of dealing with these situations. But think of it for the poor
schmoo who doesn't. Who has a bunch of gamers, one or two of which may
be powergamers - that's it. He/she doesn't want to lose the players,
but has no way of enforcing logic on the powergamers, and they're
destroying the game by taking control with super powerful characters.

With wired 3 or somsuch there's availablity, legality, access time,
costs. With magic, there's reasearch time, and costs - that's it.
Nothing to say to the mage, hey, that hellblast/fireball/manaball/whatev
er spell you're researching had better be used carefully, because...

>> 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
>
>See BBB, page XXX (;P), in Magic section. Noticing spellcasting gives
>the TN for Perception test, and "the GM may modify the TN by -2 if
>the observer is a mage himself". Ergo, the Perception test for TN 2
>for noticing that F6 Manabolt can be made by mundanes.
><snip>

Assuming that the mage is looking in the right direction at the right
time. I cannot accept that everybody has 360 degree vision and is
always watching for everything.

Hell, I've missed a stop light because I was watching some stupid
pedestrian trying to get run over... A sodding great big glowing red
light that sits shining angrily into my windscreen... I was otherwise
occupied, I've been driving for a good many years, I've passed an
advanced driving course, yet, because I was watching the prat on the
side, I missed the light and nearly hit an oncoming. What you are in
effect saying is that I could be doing this in Shadowrun, and I still
get a perception test to notice, even though I'm looking in a different
direction.

>to do it, and when to do it, especially the shamans among them.
></sarcasm mode off>

See my other posts on the subject... :)

>'Cause his totem told him to? 'Cause...
>The reasons are many.. Read some quotes in the Archetypes section of
>the BBB... ;>

Sure...
<spike mode>
I hate Microsoft, so I've joined the TA to learn how to use an assault
rifle so I can kill Bill Gates...
</spike>

I don't think that has any relevance.

OK. Which character states what you have suggested? Only one. The
Former Wage Mage.

Not indicative of society in general is it. It was working for a corp.

However, if you have any of my other posts, you'll notice a few things
mentioned in them regarding mages and the shadows.

>The truth is, shadowrunning DOES pay. Maybe not in your campaign, or
>in Paul's, but in some it definitively does.

Oh yes, it does, I've seen figures of 40K and several hundred K throuwn
around with abandon. But secure life, earning 100K at a corp as a pet
god, offers security, money, status, safety <sic>

The streets offer what? Instant death at any time of the day.

Not to say the money isn't there, but it's illogical. However, that's
neither here nor there. This is Shadowrun, not CorporateRun.

>> 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.
>
>So, do your sammies have permits for their Assault Rifles? They
>don't have Assault Rifles?

If they can afford a fake SIN, and can arrange a fake SIN, and it stands
up to scrutiny - yes. If not, they run a very high risk if they walk
around lunking a sodding great AR with them.

In the main they don't have AR's. Not unless it is supplied by Johnson
for the specific purpose of making a big mess of something. Or, they've
managed to make the contacts to get access to a gunrunner.

>But looking at the Archetypes in BBB, FASA prefers the guns-a-blazin
>type. Look at all the gear Archetypes have. LMG Valiant. Get a permit
>for that... ;P

The mercenary has an LMG variant. If the character fits the campaign
fine. But whether the permit or not exists, it's a fact that the weapon
is illegal on the streets. Fireball is not. Only murder.

For the merc, he's broken several laws - Possession without permit,
transporting without permit, possession with intent, use of a weapon in
a federal crime (murder) etc etc... & murder one.

If he owns a permit (unlikely) the charges change, but remain.

Life... or the chair. Loads of crimes.

The mage with fireball... Murder one. 20 years to life, 15 years
minimum. One crime.

--
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. 3
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:07:35 -0500
> I've seen several comments on this list so far, that state it takes time
> to learn a spell, it costs karma to learn a spell, it costs time and
> money to quest for a spell. All of which is covered in the system. But
> there are no consequences for owning the spell.
Owever, the Grimmy states that ownership of a spell is very difficult to
determine, as a spell is an expression of natural law. This, of course,
has far greater implications in copyright and intellectual property law
than criminal law, but the same priciple applies. A mage who knows a spell
does not 'own' the spell, even if he has a copy of the formula. That is
like saying someone 'owns' gravity because they have a formula explaining
its workings, or that Einstein 'owns' relativity theory.

>
> Now, I admit there's no way for Law enforcement to judge what is or
> isn't owned by a mage, bar searching their property and using another
> mage to analyse the formulae and research notes - a lengthy and time
> consuming process, but in the case of "caught in the act" probably a
> viable one. However, there is nothing to say that a mage can't walk
> down Main Street in the middle of a Saturday afternoon, casting
> hellblast everywhere he feels like it - provided he doesn't actually
> blow anything up, or kill anyone. (Forget drain for a minute) There is
> no reason he can't do it. The spell itself, although extremely
> powerful, and very dangerous doesn't have a legal consequence. What
> would be the reaction of a normal citizen to this?
No, the same laws that say you can't walk down the street shooting an
assault rifle. Reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, all still apply
in this situation.
> Well, in my opinion you'd have mass panic, but according to others,
> they're so familiar with magic, that it would be simply a mid day
> fireworks disply by an accepted and rational member of society. So the
> local cop turns to the mage and says "Hey, nice display, mate."...
>
Guns are far more common on the streets of Seattle, and most people even
own them and carry them. Does that mean they won't duck if someone opens
up with an automatic weapon? Of course not.
Message no. 4
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:52:45 +0000
On 20 Nov 97, Avenger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

<snip>

> >Well, the problem is, your average runner is SINless. Why do they
> >need ANY registration?
>
> Firearms are restricted, they have a penal code attached that
> affects their availability and the judicial conditions if caught
> with one.
>
> Cyberware, cyberdecks, every other facet of Shadowrun is covered by
> a legality rating that affects how easy it is to get something, how
> socially acceptable it is once you've got it, and what the reaction
> of the local law enforcement agency is going to be when someone
> phones them and reports an incident.
>
> All of the above can be owned legally with a certificate, meaning
> they can be carried legally with registration. OK, Runners don't
> reggister, but truly, how many players pay for fake SINs.. most if
> I'm not mistaken. Fake SIN, of sufficient is paid for it, can open
> up a doorway to "normal" society, allowing for licences and
> registration for firearms and suchlike.

If you take a Fake SIN, you'd like to have an alternate identity of
Joe the Worker, not Joe the War Vet with a Panther Cannon In His
Pocket. <grin>
BTW: The rules for Fake SIN are in the (out of print) NAGRL. Yes,
you can find them on the net, but how many players have access to
the net and look for the rules? So pray tell, do you think even 50%
of gaming groups will know the Fake SIN rules? Nope. The list is a
skewed sample of SR gamers...

<snip>

> I've seen several comments on this list so far, that state it takes
> time to learn a spell, it costs karma to learn a spell, it costs
> time and money to quest for a spell. All of which is covered in the
> system. But there are no consequences for owning the spell.

Are there consequences for knowing Demolitons at 6? Or
Computer/Software/Decking at 8, even if it can't be probably used for
anything else than stealing info?

The consequences are for USING the spell... Sorry. I know mages are
powerful and can get easily from under control, but: Welcome
to Sixth World, where Magic is Power." (FASA)
;P

BTW: I think there should be sam law covering learning/teaching
combat spells, combat foci etc. And if there is some way to find out
what spells mage knows without violating the Fifth, well... I am for
the legality ratings for the spells...
The only thing I was against is registering mages/DNA samples and all
this Orwellian crap... ;P

<snip>
> probably a viable one. However, there is nothing to say that a mage
> can't walk down Main Street in the middle of a Saturday afternoon,
> casting hellblast everywhere he feels like it - provided he doesn't
> actually blow anything up, or kill anyone. (Forget drain for a
> minute) There is no reason he can't do it. The spell itself,

Well, this is a combat spell. You have to aim for a living being.
Besides, that can qualify as reckless endangerment, attempted
assault, animal abuse (that cat you targeted ;P ) etc.

<snip>

> >> 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)
> >
> >NONONONO. It was pointed out here that noticing powerful spells if
> >fairly easy, according to the rules from BBB:
> >Perception TN: (Magic - Force) * 2
> >So, a Magic 6 mage casting a F6 manabolt is TN2 to notice.
> >Magic 6 mage casting a F1 fireball is TN 10 to notice, but what's a
> >Force 1 Fireball gonna do?
>
> It also states that once cast the spell is gone... No longer
> detectable. If the mage is not astrally perceiving. If the
> opposing mage is taking time out from dodging bullets, eating his
> donut, concentrating on keeping the sec team alive, whatever, and
> astrally perceives he might see the spell.

That's for mundanes, not for mages. How many times I have to tell
this? BTW: In astral, noticing spellcasting is automatic. This
applies to seeing spellcasting in "realspace".

> Logic must play a part in this. It can't be a simple. OK, your
> casting a spell, which means my NPC mage, who is actually engaged in
> trying to fry the Sammie's has a target number to notice it... No,
> sorry.

Your NPC mage has a TN to notice it. So has your sammie, who is
shooting at the guy next to the mage, and so is the second sammie,
who has just ducked behind cover and is scanning around for threats.
And crying "MAGE!" is a free action...

> If someone is occupied with something, there's a damn good chance
> theat they'll miss something else. How many times have you missed
> something because you were otherwise occupied? People in Shadowrun
> aren't superheroes, and shouldn't be played as if they were. They
> are ordianry people, with all the associated problems.

Yes, of course. But remember what's the TN of 2 (actually, it's 0,
but the minimum TN is 2) - it's the lowest possibnle TN. So the
mage/sammy/witness won't only notice the spell when he's busy
selecting his target, but he won't also notice the sammy pulling out
the Assault Rifle, the other guy whipping out the grenade etc.

No wonder there's so many casualties in combat. I mean, if you don't
look around, you're bound to get whacked... ;P

<snip>

> >Ehh. You're quoting out of context. This "decision to observe the
> >spell" applies when mage tries to scan the spell itself for the spell
> >signature.
>
> Then the person who used the quote on me was also qquoting out of
> context? It was used as an example to me, regarding spell
> detection, in relation to mages noticing spell casting. I have so
> far been unable to check the quote as one of my players has my
> Awakenings book.

AFAICR, the quote was used when talking about spell recognising, and
spell signature.

And I'd recommend getting your Awakenings back. <grin>

> >Noticing that the guy over there, near the stuffer shack,
> >is casting a spell uses the procedure from BBB.
>
> The BBB overrules Awakenings? Awakenings was written to expand and
> clarrify confusions created by BBB...

Yes. The "decision to observe the spell" is a DIFFERENT RULE, for
the Maker's sake... What you're saying is the same as saying that
"Rules for resisting falling damage from Fields of Fire replace the
rules for resisting unarmed combat damage from BBB, since FoF is a
newer supplement from BBB."
Those rules are talking about 2 different things...

As you see, lotsa listmembers are mentioning using the BBB rule to
you, so there has to be some reason behind this...

> >That's why all those FASA pictures have their mages with funky
> >mistical effects courtesy of ILM. ;P
>
> But where in the core rules does it state that the funky mystical
> effects actually exist? The pictures have that there so that _you_
> the reader can tell which one is the mage... <g>

Where in the core rules does it state they don't? Actually, even
gathering purely ASTRAL energies would have an effect in realspace.
Otherwise, if a high concentration of astral energy is totally
invisible, then, pray tell, why are there rules for noticing purely
astral elementals and nature spirits?

> I follow the piccies, as you may have noticed from other posts on
> this subject. But... There is nothing to say it has to be like
> this. Mages are the perfect assassin. Silent, invisible, and
> essentially, unless you just happen to be looking in the right
> direction at the right time - undetectable.

So is a sniper with a flash/sound suppressed rifle. Big deal. If the
mage is far away, it's the same thing as with the sniper. And if the
mage is casting a spell from the other side of the street, it IS
noticeable. (Again, read the BBB rule, and read the Awakenings
rule when you'll get them back)

<snip>

> Now. Assume that a mage throws a fireball at a sec-team. Now, this
> time, against my other posts, it's not done to kill, but to terrify.
> Themage doesn't kill anybody on this occassion. He has, essentially
> not broken any laws. Aside from trespassing (extraterritoriality)

No? Have you ever heard of "assault with a deadly weapon"? According
to your example, if I shoot from an M-16 at somebody and won't kill
him, I haven't broken any laws, did I?

<snip>

> You should have gathered by now, from the other messages that I have
> a way of dealing with these situations. But think of it for the
> poor schmoo who doesn't. Who has a bunch of gamers, one or two of
> which may be powergamers - that's it. He/she doesn't want to lose
> the players, but has no way of enforcing logic on the powergamers,
> and they're destroying the game by taking control with super
> powerful characters.
>
> With wired 3 or somsuch there's availablity, legality, access time,

Yeah. If the poor shmoo has a powergamer in his group, he's going to
get wired 3 at chargen, without availability, legality, access time
and all this crap. Legality? The powergamer will have killed so many
people (since that's what the powergamers do if they loose the fun
for others) that he'll go to jail for 230+ years, simply from all
"assault with a deadly weapon" and "murder, 1st degree" charges. The
same applies to magemonsters...

> >> 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
> >
> >See BBB, page XXX (;P), in Magic section. Noticing spellcasting gives
> >the TN for Perception test, and "the GM may modify the TN by -2 if
> >the observer is a mage himself". Ergo, the Perception test for TN 2
> >for noticing that F6 Manabolt can be made by mundanes.
> ><snip>
>
> Assuming that the mage is looking in the right direction at the
> right time. I cannot accept that everybody has 360 degree vision
> and is always watching for everything.

Yes. But, for Maker's sake, how many times I have to repeat that does
not apply to mages only! If the mage can get away with casting
spell, the sammie next to him can get away with throwing a grenade,
'cause nobody is looking at him.

<snip>

> OK. Which character states what you have suggested? Only one. The
> Former Wage Mage.

No. The look at Street Mage, Street Shaman, Combat Mage, etc.

> Not indicative of society in general is it. It was working for a
> corp.

As does the 90% of society. Is that relevant? Nope.

> However, if you have any of my other posts, you'll notice a few
> things mentioned in them regarding mages and the shadows.

Yes. However, that is YOUR campaign. I dare to assume most gamers
(that is, over 50%) play according to the FASA view of
mages/sammies/etc., and probably don't even have fake SINs. (that
pesky NAGRL is hard to get, and out of print)

> >The truth is, shadowrunning DOES pay. Maybe not in your campaign, or
> >in Paul's, but in some it definitively does.
>
> Oh yes, it does, I've seen figures of 40K and several hundred K
> throuwn around with abandon. But secure life, earning 100K at a
> corp as a pet god, offers security, money, status, safety <sic>
>
> The streets offer what? Instant death at any time of the day.

"Those who wish to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security
do not deserve neither the freedom nor the security" - Franklin.

<snip>

> >So, do your sammies have permits for their Assault Rifles? They
> >don't have Assault Rifles?
<snip>

> In the main they don't have AR's. Not unless it is supplied by
> Johnson for the specific purpose of making a big mess of something.
> Or, they've managed to make the contacts to get access to a
> gunrunner.

See? I dare say that you're not playing a "standard" SR game. That is
SR, but a much more low-level one.
I doubt your campaign's mode of operation would be fit with most of
FASA canned modules...

It's not to say this way of plaing is worse or better, it's just
different...


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
Old professors never die - they simply lose their faculties.
Message no. 5
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:10:19 +0000
> of gaming groups will know the Fake SIN rules? Nope. The list is a
> skewed sample of SR gamers...

Hey! Who are you calling "skewed"?

Skew you buddy!

-=SwiftOne=-


Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 6
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:24:25 -0500
At 01:55 AM 11/20/97 +0000, you wrote:
> All of which is covered in the system. But
>there are no consequences for owning the spell.

Aahh, but there ARE consequences for using spells. Just because it isn't
illegal to know a spell doesn't mean that there is no legal consequence to
using it. FASA specifically states that it is the _use_ of magic that the
law deals with.
>
>However, there is nothing to say that a mage can't walk
>down Main Street in the middle of a Saturday afternoon, casting
>hellblast everywhere he feels like it - provided he doesn't actually
>blow anything up, or kill anyone. (Forget drain for a minute) There is
>no reason he can't do it. The spell itself, although extremely
>powerful, and very dangerous doesn't have a legal consequence. What
>would be the reaction of a normal citizen to this?

I think "reckless endangerment" and "attempted murder -- multiple
counts"
apply, and probably a general being a dumbass charge as well. If you own a
gun legally, can you fire it off in public place? Can you yell "fire" in a
crowded theater legally? Nope, same for this kind of display of magic.
They'll arrest your ass, probably your corpse after calling SWAT. Using
magic in such a way _is_ illegal. It would be a lesser crime than killing
someone with the spell, but such a use is dangerous, just like firing a gun
near a crowd (the judge won't care that you were quite careful not to hit
anyone, you'll still end up in jail, whether it was a bullet or fireball).

>Well, in my opinion you'd have mass panic, but according to others,
>they're so familiar with magic, that it would be simply a mid day
>fireworks disply by an accepted and rational member of society. So the
>local cop turns to the mage and says "Hey, nice display, mate."...

People are quite used to guns, but they would still freak out if some moron
starting firing one in a public place. The use of magic would certainly
cause the same panic, even if people knew what it was and were used to it,
because it could kill them.


>
>It also states that once cast the spell is gone... No longer
>detectable. If the mage is not astrally perceiving. If the opposing
>mage is taking time out from dodging bullets, eating his donut,
>concentrating on keeping the sec team alive, whatever, and astrally
>perceives he might see the spell.

Again, you aren't quite precise in what you are talking about here. What
is gone is the image of the spell signature, that can only be detected at
the time of the casting. However, on pg 104 of Awakenings under temporary
background count, it states that powerful magic can leave temporary
background counts, this certainly sounds to me like the use of magic can
sometimes be determined astrally after the fact.

>Logic must play a part in this. It can't be a simple. OK, your casting
>a spell, which means my NPC mage, who is actually engaged in trying to
>fry the Sammie's has a target number to notice it... No, sorry.

ANYONE can notice the casting, a perceiving mage will instantly notice the
casting, what requires concentration is the observation of spell signature,
this is not the same as being able to tell that someone is using magic, it
is more like learning everything about _how_ they use magic.

>
>If someone is occupied with something, there's a damn good chance theat
>they'll miss something else. How many times have you missed something
>because you were otherwise occupied? People in Shadowrun aren't
>superheroes, and shouldn't be played as if they were. They are ordianry
>people, with all the associated problems.

But, it is a far cry from impossible to detect the mages thought to there
is a TN to spot the action, a very low one for high force spells.
>
>>Noticing that the guy over there, near the stuffer shack,
>>is casting a spell uses the procedure from BBB.
>
>The BBB overrules Awakenings? Awakenings was written to expand and
>clarrify confusions created by BBB...

You are confusing two completely seperate things, which you will realize
when you get your Awakenings back. The procedure from awakenings deals
with observing the castors spell signature (something unique to every
mage), not with noticing the casting. ANY mage who is astrally perceiving
will INSTANTLY be able to tell if someone is casting a spell, no perception
test. The perception test from BBB is for mundane perception, and the
point is that people will notice. If a mage kills someone in a public
place with magic, where there are 15 people walking by, someone will notice
it, there WILL be a witness. Thus, the killing with a thought and no one
the wiser point is COMPLETELY INVALID. If the mage manages to do the job
with a low force spell, this is the same as someone using a concealed
pistol with silencer -- it is subtle, and it makes sense that no one
noticed. There is no problem with the system, as far as I'm concerned.


>
>>That's why all those FASA pictures have their mages with funky
>>mistical effects courtesy of ILM. ;P
>
>But where in the core rules does it state that the funky mystical
>effects actually exist? The pictures have that there so that _you_ the
>reader can tell which one is the mage... <g>

Well, there IS _SOMETHING_ THAT MUNDANES CAN NOTICE. Shamen when they cast
spells take on the visible form of their totems for a split second, more
noticeable with higher force. Mystical things are happening. Spells are
only like AD&D psionics because you want them to be. It never says that
casting is completely undetectable the way psionics in AD&D are. It says
it isn't always obvious, and then presents rules for perceiving -- the same
way a perception test must be made to notice a sammy using a silenced
pistol from under a newspaper. When the sammy whips out the panther
cannon, or the mage the force 10 hellblast, skip the test. Stop being so
caught up in this iterpretation of the rules that is overly literal. Just
describe a damn spell effect, since you seem to want to so much, I do.
Sheesh, you are arguing to no purpose, since you don't even want the rules
to be played the way you insist on interpreting them.

>
>I follow the piccies, as you may have noticed from other posts on this
>subject. But... There is nothing to say it has to be like this. Mages
>are the perfect assassin. Silent, invisible, and essentially, unless
>you just happen to be looking in the right direction at the right time -
>undetectable.

Same as a guy with a small gun and silencer and the know-how to use it.
Sure, mages _can_ be subtle, so what, so can anyone else. Hell, they may
be even better at subtletey then others, so what. That spell can also be
stopped by shielding from any magical bodyguard within LOS of the target.
Measures and countermeasures...



>
>The direct consequence is governed by a legality rating ont he spell.
>if it is cast in a situation where people see it or notice it, then the
>judicial system has a way of dealing with it.

Actually, the legal consequences depend on the _effect_ of the spell.
Legal consequences for magic are based on the results. Who cares what the
spell is called by the mage, it made a big ass fireball, so treat it like
illegal and dangerous use of magic. It killed somebody, prosecute like a
murder, and illegal use of magic. Why does the spell have to be singled
out, just look at the result, and call it ... illegal use of magic.
>
>Now. Assume that a mage throws a fireball at a sec-team. Now, this
>time, against my other posts, it's not done to kill, but to terrify.
>Themage doesn't kill anybody on this occassion. He has, essentially not
>broken any laws. Aside from trespassing (extraterritoriality) he's done
>nothing. Yet, he owns, and has cast a spell of extreme destructive
>capabilities. Get away from force drain and success dice for a moment.
>It was a fireball... Everybody shrugs their shoulders - hell he didn't
>do any harm - he wasn't on UCAS soil - so, frag it. I don't like that
>resolution. But there's no guidelines, except for the vagueries of the
>Lone Star book If the GM doesn't own the LS book, what's he to do?

So, if I shoot at someone, but don't hit them, that is okay? This is
stupid. They call it attempted murder and throw him in jail for 15 years.
End of story. Why does the spell have to be illegal, the use the spell was
put to was clearly illegal.
>
>You should have gathered by now, from the other messages that I have a
>way of dealing with these situations. But think of it for the poor
>schmoo who doesn't. Who has a bunch of gamers, one or two of which may
>be powergamers - that's it. He/she doesn't want to lose the players,
>but has no way of enforcing logic on the powergamers, and they're
>destroying the game by taking control with super powerful characters.
>
Not if they use common sense, which you seem to be ignoring. Just because
a spell is legal doesn't mean the use to which the spell is put is. If I
throw a hammer at a cop and miss, he'll arrest my ass. Hammer, legal,
throwing at cop, not. Spell legal, terrorizing public, not. Simple.


>With wired 3 or somsuch there's availablity, legality, access time,
>costs. With magic, there's reasearch time, and costs - that's it.
>Nothing to say to the mage, hey, that hellblast/fireball/manaball/whatev
>er spell you're researching had better be used carefully, because...

because the mage can get the fireball completely on his own, without buying
it from someone else. He can write up the formulae, completely from
scratch. There is no easy way to legislate magic. What if a spell called
BBQ was designed. Manipulation, shoots out a short range stream of fire,
used usually to cook hotdogs. Then, the mage tries to cook a meter maid
with it because he doesn't want a parking ticket. He is caught and
arrested. The judge looks in his book of illegal spells, and no where see
BBQ. So, he lets him go? No, he charges him with assualt with a deadly
weapon (magic). What is gained by having the list of spells, nothing.
Spells are not as black and white as they appear in the BBB. Every mage
and shaman might have their own versions, their own variations. What is
the point of trying to figure out which are legal and which aren't? Just
look at the actions. If they are used to cook hotdogs, don't bother them,
if they are used to kill, injure, threaten, or cause public panic, arrest
them and charge with illegal use of magic. Easy and simple.
>
>>> 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
>>
>>See BBB, page XXX (;P), in Magic section. Noticing spellcasting gives
>>the TN for Perception test, and "the GM may modify the TN by -2 if
>>the observer is a mage himself". Ergo, the Perception test for TN 2
>>for noticing that F6 Manabolt can be made by mundanes.
>><snip>
>
>Assuming that the mage is looking in the right direction at the right
>time. I cannot accept that everybody has 360 degree vision and is
>always watching for everything.

This perception test applies to EVERYONE. That means that someone will
probably see the spell casting, which completely removes the whole issue of
killing with a glance.
>
>Hell, I've missed a stop light because I was watching some stupid
>pedestrian trying to get run over... A sodding great big glowing red
>light that sits shining angrily into my windscreen... I was otherwise
>occupied, I've been driving for a good many years, I've passed an
>advanced driving course, yet, because I was watching the prat on the
>side, I missed the light and nearly hit an oncoming. What you are in
>effect saying is that I could be doing this in Shadowrun, and I still
>get a perception test to notice, even though I'm looking in a different
>direction.

So, _you_ don't notice. Who cares, someone can, and eventually someone
will. Same for witnesses to any criminal situation. Some will be too
occupied, but some will notice the guy with the silenced gun under his
coat. What is your point? Not everything is obvious, but the F6 Fireball
really is.

>The mage with fireball... Murder one. 20 years to life, 15 years
>minimum. One crime.

Here you are missing something. Knowing a spell may not be illegal, but
the use of magic (not defined as a type of spell) very frequently is. The
charge would be use of magic when commiting a federal crime (murder). How
do they label or control spells, they don't. That doesn't mean they ignore
magic. Instead, they just treat it as magic, assualt with intent to maim,
with deadly weapon (magic), etc. I think this makes plenty of sense, given
the fluidity of spells and magic, and how no two fireballs are necessarily
the same spell.

--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. 7
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:15:31 +0000
In article <199711201449.PAA13495@*****.onet.pl>, "Leszek Karlik, aka
Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL> writes
>On 20 Nov 97, Avenger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
>writing:
>> probably a viable one. However, there is nothing to say that a mage
>> can't walk down Main Street in the middle of a Saturday afternoon,
>> casting hellblast everywhere he feels like it - provided he doesn't
>> actually blow anything up, or kill anyone. (Forget drain for a
>> minute) There is no reason he can't do it. The spell itself,
>
>Well, this is a combat spell. You have to aim for a living being.

Nope, it just needs a target. Throw a pebble in the air and Hellblast it
for kicks :) (A mana spell would need a living target, a physical spell
can be aimed at an inanimate object)

>Besides, that can qualify as reckless endangerment, attempted
>assault, animal abuse (that cat you targeted ;P ) etc.

Why? The spell's going off away from anyone or anything that might be
endangered. Legally, what can they charge you with if the spell is legal
and you need to kill someone or damage property before they can act?

And what happens if the guy is arrested and charged with reckless
endangerment, and at his trial claims the spell was a harmless illusion?

There's no way, without another magician examining him in detail while
he cast the spell, to provide evidence that the spell could have done
harm, and plenty of proof that such illusions are possible. So the guy
walks.

I'd like to see a "Threat" or "Use" offence for magic, same as for
firearms: public display of what could be interpreted as dangerous magic
is an offence, just as waving a pistol around will get you arrested and
often charged - whether it's a fully loaded nine-mil automatic, or a
replica only able to fire blanks. (Even walking around firing blanks
will get you in a lot of trouble: in Britain several people have been
shot dead by armed police for doing so, usually while drunk).

>> I follow the piccies, as you may have noticed from other posts on
>> this subject. But... There is nothing to say it has to be like
>> this. Mages are the perfect assassin. Silent, invisible, and
>> essentially, unless you just happen to be looking in the right
>> direction at the right time - undetectable.
>
>So is a sniper with a flash/sound suppressed rifle. Big deal.

Except he needs to carry the rifle in and out, or discard it and somehow
find another, it leaves bullets behind that can be analysed. Magic has
none of these drawbacks. No residue, no large physical component.

>> Now. Assume that a mage throws a fireball at a sec-team. Now, this
>> time, against my other posts, it's not done to kill, but to terrify.
>> Themage doesn't kill anybody on this occassion. He has, essentially
>> not broken any laws. Aside from trespassing (extraterritoriality)
>
>No? Have you ever heard of "assault with a deadly weapon"? According
>to your example, if I shoot from an M-16 at somebody and won't kill
>him, I haven't broken any laws, did I?

Firearms are legislated. Magic apparently isn't.

_Prove_ that the spell was dangerous. How could that harmless illusion
have harmed the security team in any way? Nobody has been hurt and no
damage was caused. What offence has taken place? Unless public use of
magic is regulated in and of itself, you can't legally take action until
someone is hurt or property is damaged.

>> In the main they don't have AR's. Not unless it is supplied by
>> Johnson for the specific purpose of making a big mess of something.
>> Or, they've managed to make the contacts to get access to a
>> gunrunner.
>
>See? I dare say that you're not playing a "standard" SR game. That is
>SR, but a much more low-level one.

Our Johnson provided us with four pistols, a sniper rifle and some C-4
plastique for our current job. We are _scared_. Why will we need this
sort of firepower? Are we about to get shot at again?

>I doubt your campaign's mode of operation would be fit with most of
>FASA canned modules...

Some would work superbly. We'd do Dreamchipper just fine, for instance.
Or Divided Assets (though I _hated_ that adventure). Our problems come
in firefights. We don't do gunfire :) (well, one does, but he's only
fired four shots in anger)


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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 8
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:10:20 -0500
> Firearms are legislated. Magic apparently isn't.
>
> _Prove_ that the spell was dangerous. How could that harmless illusion
> have harmed the security team in any way? Nobody has been hurt and no
> damage was caused. What offence has taken place? Unless public use of
> magic is regulated in and of itself, you can't legally take action until
> someone is hurt or property is damaged.
Not true. As has been quoted, the Lone Star sourcebook gives a good
descrition of regulations on magic. As well, in the Grimmy, it says that
the use of any combat spell is enough to prove intent to kill. Thus, said
psycho mage is guilty of attempted murder.
Even a 'harmless' illusion has negative consequence, like causing mass
panic, which would be more than enough to gat a reckless endangerment or
at least creating a public nusiance charge. Just like yelling fire in a
crowded theater.
Message no. 9
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:16:48 +1100
> BTW: The rules for Fake SIN are in the (out of print) NAGRL. Yes,
> you can find them on the net, but how many players have access to
> the net and look for the rules? So pray tell, do you think even 50%
> of gaming groups will know the Fake SIN rules? Nope. The list is a
> skewed sample of SR gamers...

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The NAGRL only went OOP this
year - which means that anyone who started SR gaming before this year
certainly had access to it. I don't know of a single SR group around my
area who *don't* have access to an NAGRL (hell, our group has two or
three copies).

And doesn't Sprawl Sites have the same rules in the back? Granted, it
went OOP quite a long time ago ;) but it probably covers a percentage of
the long-time SR gamers who don't have NAGRL.


Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"All right! Bovine intervention!!!" -- The Tick
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 10
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:28:30 -0500
At 08:15 PM 11/20/97 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <199711201449.PAA13495@*****.onet.pl>, "Leszek Karlik, aka
>Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL> writes
>>On 20 Nov 97, Avenger disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
>>writing:
>>> probably a viable one. However, there is nothing to say that a mage
>>> can't walk down Main Street in the middle of a Saturday afternoon,
>>> casting hellblast everywhere he feels like it - provided he doesn't
>>> actually blow anything up, or kill anyone. (Forget drain for a
>>> minute) There is no reason he can't do it. The spell itself,
>>
>>Well, this is a combat spell. You have to aim for a living being.
>
>Nope, it just needs a target. Throw a pebble in the air and Hellblast it
>for kicks :) (A mana spell would need a living target, a physical spell
>can be aimed at an inanimate object)
>
>>Besides, that can qualify as reckless endangerment, attempted
>>assault, animal abuse (that cat you targeted ;P ) etc.
>
>Why? The spell's going off away from anyone or anything that might be
>endangered. Legally, what can they charge you with if the spell is legal
>and you need to kill someone or damage property before they can act?
>
>And what happens if the guy is arrested and charged with reckless
>endangerment, and at his trial claims the spell was a harmless illusion?
>
>There's no way, without another magician examining him in detail while
>he cast the spell, to provide evidence that the spell could have done
>harm, and plenty of proof that such illusions are possible. So the guy
>walks.
>
>I'd like to see a "Threat" or "Use" offence for magic, same as for
>firearms: public display of what could be interpreted as dangerous magic
>is an offence, just as waving a pistol around will get you arrested and
>often charged - whether it's a fully loaded nine-mil automatic, or a
>replica only able to fire blanks. (Even walking around firing blanks
>will get you in a lot of trouble: in Britain several people have been
>shot dead by armed police for doing so, usually while drunk).

I'm pretty sure such laws exsist for magic. Spells may not be illegal, but
their results can be. That is stated in sourcebooks. Therefore it seems
to be a safe assumption that this applies to public display as well as
murder/assault.

>>
>>No? Have you ever heard of "assault with a deadly weapon"? According
>>to your example, if I shoot from an M-16 at somebody and won't kill
>>him, I haven't broken any laws, did I?
>
>Firearms are legislated. Magic apparently isn't.

Wrongo, magic is legislated, specific spells are not.
>
>_Prove_ that the spell was dangerous. How could that harmless illusion
>have harmed the security team in any way? Nobody has been hurt and no
>damage was caused. What offence has taken place? Unless public use of
>magic is regulated in and of itself, you can't legally take action until
>someone is hurt or property is damaged.

Physical damaging spells like fireball, hellblast cause a physical effect.
It shouldn't take FBI crime analysis labs to prove that explosion could
have killed. Also, spells leave traces in the astral that linger for
awhile after the casting (pg 104 Awakenings). While you may not be able to
tell who cast the spell from them (can't be used to identify spell
signature of castor unless observed while casting), it seems to make sense
that it would be possible to identify the type of spell used (especially if
it was powerful enough to cause damage.)

--DT
Message no. 11
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:46:21 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971120142419.006e2334@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>At 01:55 AM 11/20/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>However, there is nothing to say that a mage can't walk
>>down Main Street in the middle of a Saturday afternoon, casting
>>hellblast everywhere he feels like it - provided he doesn't actually
>>blow anything up, or kill anyone.

>I think "reckless endangerment" and "attempted murder -- multiple
counts"
>apply, and probably a general being a dumbass charge as well.

No property damage. No injuries. Just lots of flame and light. Assuming
it was real flame: what if it was an illusion spell? No law against
owning it, no law against using it provided nobody gets hurt. Can you
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the spell used was able to cause harm
to anyone or anything?

>If you own a
>gun legally, can you fire it off in public place?

Nope: that's a "use" charge, as clearly defined in Sprawl Sites and
elsewhere. No "use" charge for magic.

>They'll arrest your ass, probably your corpse after calling SWAT.

On what charge? The spell could be a deadly Hellblast or a harmless
illusion. Nobody's been hurt. No property has been damaged. There's no
law against owning an illusion spell, no law against casting it, and
unless you can get a magically active cop here to watch the spell being
cast there's no way to prove it _isn't_ an illusion.

>Using
>magic in such a way _is_ illegal. It would be a lesser crime than killing
>someone with the spell, but such a use is dangerous, just like firing a gun
>near a crowd (the judge won't care that you were quite careful not to hit
>anyone, you'll still end up in jail, whether it was a bullet or fireball).

My point exactly, but when Pete and I said so we were told there was no
law against public use of magic ;)

>People are quite used to guns, but they would still freak out if some moron
>starting firing one in a public place. The use of magic would certainly
>cause the same panic, even if people knew what it was and were used to it,
>because it could kill them.

Again... amazing how vehemently this point has been opposed in this
thread.

>Actually, the legal consequences depend on the _effect_ of the spell.
>Legal consequences for magic are based on the results. Who cares what the
>spell is called by the mage, it made a big ass fireball, so treat it like
>illegal and dangerous use of magic. It killed somebody, prosecute like a
>murder, and illegal use of magic. Why does the spell have to be singled
>out, just look at the result, and call it ... illegal use of magic.

Why do guns have to be singled out and controlled? Guns don't kill
people, _people_ kill people. Yet both real life and Shadowrun have
controls on the sale, ownership, transport and use of firearms.

So, why would the manufacture and sale of spell formulae for Hellblast
and the like, Combat spell fetishes, weapon foci, et al not be subject
to restrictions and controls?

>So, if I shoot at someone, but don't hit them, that is okay? This is
>stupid. They call it attempted murder and throw him in jail for 15 years.
>End of story. Why does the spell have to be illegal, the use the spell was
>put to was clearly illegal.

Again: prove it was a harmful spell beyond reasonable doubt, and not the
illusion spell the defendant is willing to prove he can cast. He
testifies under oath that he knows no spells with harmful effects, being
a man of peace who attends church regularly and considering violence to
be a crime against God.

If you say that magic that _appears_ to be of hostile intent can be
considered to be deadly force, then casting magic in public is
incredibly dangerous. The flickers of shamanic mask that accompany
casting Makeover or Healthy Glow could as easily be accompanying Mana
Bolt. "He wuz casting a spell, yer Honner, so I shot him." Mundanes know
_that_ a spell is being cast, not _what_ the spell is. Again, on trial
for killing a magician... prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
defendent knew the spell being cast was harmless.

It comes down to, where's the burden of proof?

>Not if they use common sense, which you seem to be ignoring. Just because
>a spell is legal doesn't mean the use to which the spell is put is. If I
>throw a hammer at a cop and miss, he'll arrest my ass. Hammer, legal,
>throwing at cop, not. Spell legal, terrorizing public, not. Simple.

I can own a hammer because I can pound nails into wood with it. I can
own a cleaver because I like cooking Chinese food. I can't walk the
streets with a cleaver in one pocket and a hammer in the other.
Magicians do, they can't "unlearn" a spell. And what legitimate use does
Mana Bolt or Hellblast have for a private citizen, when assorted non-
lethal spells exist?

>because the mage can get the fireball completely on his own, without buying
>it from someone else. He can write up the formulae, completely from
>scratch.

He needs a hermetic library or a shamanic lodge to do so. Control those.

I could turn out ammunition by the boxful back when I still shot, but
then I owned a reloading press, cases, powder, primers, bullets... Take
those away and I can't make ammo no more.

> There is no easy way to legislate magic. What if a spell called
>BBQ was designed. Manipulation, shoots out a short range stream of fire,
>used usually to cook hotdogs. Then, the mage tries to cook a meter maid
>with it because he doesn't want a parking ticket.

Burden of proof. Why do you need a Flamethrower spell to cook hot dogs,
when ordinary charcoal grills are common, cheap and impart a better
flavour? Again, can a mundane buy a blowtorch and walk down the street
carrying it lit and ready, without some serious attention being paid?

Self-developed spells are all but impossible to legislate, but they fall
into the same legal category as home-made firearms and attract the same
punishment.


To get more extreme (based on RL) - I was licenced to own four pistols.
A .45, a .44, a 9mm and a 10mm. Just because I was a licenced gun owner
wouldn't stop me being guilty of illegal ownership if I was found with a
.357 Magnum.

Do you have a licence for that BBQ spell? No? Oops.

Try to licence it? It's a Flamethrower spell. It can incinerate people.
It does nothing a charcoal grill can't so. Application refused.

>He is caught and
>arrested. The judge looks in his book of illegal spells, and no where see
>BBQ.

The judge looks at the list of spells the defendant is licenced to
possessed. Nowhere does he see BBQ. That's a criminal offence in and of
itself. Then he sees what the defendant _did_ with the spell. A felony.

> So, he lets him go? No, he charges him with assualt with a deadly
>weapon (magic). What is gained by having the list of spells, nothing.

Licence magicians and their spells and you know who knows what. If you
have a dead body with severe burns and a high background count, checking
the list of registered magicians with assorted Fire spells is as natural
as checking the list of registered gun owners whose firearms match a
corpse's wounds.

>Spells are not as black and white as they appear in the BBB. Every mage
>and shaman might have their own versions, their own variations. What is
>the point of trying to figure out which are legal and which aren't? Just
>look at the actions. If they are used to cook hotdogs, don't bother them,
>if they are used to kill, injure, threaten, or cause public panic, arrest
>them and charge with illegal use of magic. Easy and simple.

Not unreasonable... unless the burden of proof is to show harm could be
caused, because without another mage watching it's impossible.

If the onus is on the caster to show that the use of magic was safe and
reasonable, then fine. (You're hosting a barbecue with some friends, you
use your spell to cook some wieners, who's going to lodge a complaint?)

>Here you are missing something. Knowing a spell may not be illegal, but
>the use of magic (not defined as a type of spell) very frequently is. The
>charge would be use of magic when commiting a federal crime (murder).

What if you don't kill anyone?

Do the cops have to wait for someone to die before they can act against
you?

How do they tell harmless and dangerous magic apart?

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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 12
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:26:54 +0000
On 20 Nov 97 at 1:55, Avenger wrote:
[snip]
> >Noticing that the guy over there, near the stuffer shack,
> >is casting a spell uses the procedure from BBB.
> The BBB overrules Awakenings? Awakenings was written to expand and
> clarrify confusions created by BBB...
Nope. BBB, p. 132 defines NOTICING Spellcasting, Awakenings, p. 97-98
defines recognizing/identifying the spell signature. These are
different things. Noticing spellcasting can be done by anyone,
identifying the sig of a spell only by astral observers (and it offers
much more info for the observer).

[snip]
> Mages
> are the perfect assassin. Silent, invisible, and essentially, unless
> you just happen to be looking in the right direction at the right time -
> undetectable.
Not just mages (No, I am not talking Shamans). What you say describes
snipers, too. Or poisoners (or bombers, if you consider the act of
planting the bomb as important/silent, or the activation of the bomb -
the explosion surely isn't :-)

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. 13
From: Q <Scott.E.Meyer@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:30:39 -0600
[snipping previous arguments]

I just had a thought.


---------------------------------------
"Okay, now for the really important question: Who's got change?"
-Doc Hayward on the way to Argonne Computer Seminar

Scott "Q" Meyer
Scott.E.Meyer@*******.edu
http://johnh.wheaton.edu/~smeyer
Message no. 14
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:11:45 -0500
"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote:

>Licence magicians and their spells and you know who knows what. If you
>have a dead body with severe burns and a high background count, checking
>the list of registered magicians with assorted Fire spells is as natural
>as checking the list of registered gun owners whose firearms match a
>corpse's wounds.

Aah, but you said your self that the majority of crimes were commited with
illegally owned guns, would not the same apply for spells. The other
problem is, there is no way to know or force someone to reveal which spells
they know, so the registration would be pointless anyway. The only time it
would be an issue is if someone was caught using a spell that was
destructive, but then that would be a worse crime than knowing the spell
and not registering it, so what's the point?
>
>>Spells are not as black and white as they appear in the BBB. Every mage
>>and shaman might have their own versions, their own variations. What is
>>the point of trying to figure out which are legal and which aren't? Just
>>look at the actions. If they are used to cook hotdogs, don't bother them,
>>if they are used to kill, injure, threaten, or cause public panic, arrest
>>them and charge with illegal use of magic. Easy and simple.
>
>Not unreasonable... unless the burden of proof is to show harm could be
>caused, because without another mage watching it's impossible.

Maybe, maybe not. If it was really an issue, then perhaps examination of
the astral background would reveal the nature of the spell.
>
>If the onus is on the caster to show that the use of magic was safe and
>reasonable, then fine. (You're hosting a barbecue with some friends, you
>use your spell to cook some wieners, who's going to lodge a complaint?)

Of course, the burden of proof is never on the defense (in the US), so this
would't apply.
>
>>Here you are missing something. Knowing a spell may not be illegal, but
>>the use of magic (not defined as a type of spell) very frequently is. The
>>charge would be use of magic when commiting a federal crime (murder).
>
>What if you don't kill anyone?
>
>Do the cops have to wait for someone to die before they can act against
>you?

If you throw around mana, and it looks scary, they'll shoot you without
waiting for people to drop, same as if you whipped out a gun. If you were
just tossing around illusionary mana darts, then you deserved to be shot
anyway for being a moron.

--DT
Message no. 15
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 01:02:17 -0500
At 12:46 AM 11/21/97 +0000, you wrote:

>No property damage. No injuries. Just lots of flame and light. Assuming
>it was real flame: what if it was an illusion spell? No law against
>owning it, no law against using it provided nobody gets hurt. Can you
>prove beyond reasonable doubt that the spell used was able to cause harm
>to anyone or anything?

The same might be true of firing off a clip of blanks in public...
harmless, but still likely to get you in some trouble. That's the
equivalent of a fireball illusion, when people know magiv can produce real,
killing fireball spells.


losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 16
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:27:17 +0000
On 20 Nov 97 at 17:28, David Thompson wrote:
[snip]

> Also, spells leave traces in the astral that linger for awhile after
> the casting (pg 104 Awakenings). While you may not be able to tell
> who cast the spell from them (can't be used to identify spell
> signature of castor unless observed while casting), it seems to make
> sense that it would be possible to identify the type of spell used
> (especially if it was powerful enough to cause damage.)
Awakenings, p. 104, does state "For example, especially strong
releases of emotion or magic that impress a great deal of energy into
the etheric medium, including extreme violence, powerful spells, riots,
massive rock concerts and ecstatic religious rituals, can create a
temporary background count. Once the source of the etheric impression
is gone, the background count will fade, lasting a few hours to sev-
eral days or weeks (at the gamemaster's discretion), depending on the
strength and intensity of the original impression."

Strong releases of magic. Powerful spells. Not every use of a spell
will be noticeable as background count, nor will anyone probably be
able to find traces of a single spell in a battlefield, where people
suffered and died.

Your argument may be valid for some specific occasions, but not
generally. Nowhere is hinted you can determine single events (among
others) that led to the background count, just basic information ("here
a violent act took place", "they probably had sex", ...").

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | The light at the |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de|end of the tunnel is|
| \___ __/ | | the headlight of an|
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | approaching train. |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | -- Skip (?) |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+
Message no. 17
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 01:21:53 +0000
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120160432.27687C-100000@*****>, Jeremiah
Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU> writes
>> Firearms are legislated. Magic apparently isn't.

>> _Prove_ that the spell was dangerous. How could that harmless illusion
>> have harmed the security team in any way? Nobody has been hurt and no
>> damage was caused. What offence has taken place? Unless public use of
>> magic is regulated in and of itself, you can't legally take action until
>> someone is hurt or property is damaged.

>Not true. As has been quoted, the Lone Star sourcebook gives a good
>descrition of regulations on magic. As well, in the Grimmy, it says that
>the use of any combat spell is enough to prove intent to kill. Thus, said
>psycho mage is guilty of attempted murder.

Prove it was a combat spell, rather than an illusion spell. Unless
you've got burns, or an astrally percieving magician, you can't.

If the cops can open fire based on "it looked like a combat spell to
us", then I'm happy. If they have to wait for proof that it was indeed a
dangerous spell and for HQ to give permission to engage... no, I'm not.

>Even a 'harmless' illusion has negative consequence, like causing mass
>panic, which would be more than enough to gat a reckless endangerment or
>at least creating a public nusiance charge. Just like yelling fire in a
>crowded theater.

Okay. A magician (not known to be then, but later agreed to be) is
talking to a young lady in a bar, and casts a spell (confirmed by
several witnesses). A young man storms up and punches the magician,
breaking his jaw, while yelling "leave her alone you mindraping
bastard". Police have to rescue the magician from the suddenly-angry bar
crowd.

The assaulter claims to be concerned that she was in danger of a mind
control spell, being cast for carnal purposes: he certainly saw a spell
being cast. The girl is his younger sister. The magician claims he was
merely casting Healthy Glow.

Who gets charged with what? Remember, mundanes have no way by the rules
to know _what_ is being cast.



My personal opinion? The young man free with his fists gets a police
caution but is not charged. The magician is neither charged nor
cautioned, but is told to be more careful about casting magic in public.


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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 18
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:52:23 -0500
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.971120160432.27687C-100000@*****>, Jeremiah
> Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU> writes
> >> Firearms are legislated. Magic apparently isn't.
>
> >> _Prove_ that the spell was dangerous. How could that harmless illusion
> >> have harmed the security team in any way? Nobody has been hurt and no
> >> damage was caused. What offence has taken place? Unless public use of
> >> magic is regulated in and of itself, you can't legally take action until
> >> someone is hurt or property is damaged.
>
> >Not true. As has been quoted, the Lone Star sourcebook gives a good
> >descrition of regulations on magic. As well, in the Grimmy, it says that
> >the use of any combat spell is enough to prove intent to kill. Thus, said
> >psycho mage is guilty of attempted murder.
>
> Prove it was a combat spell, rather than an illusion spell. Unless
> you've got burns, or an astrally percieving magician, you can't.
>
> If the cops can open fire based on "it looked like a combat spell to
> us", then I'm happy. If they have to wait for proof that it was indeed a
> dangerous spell and for HQ to give permission to engage... no, I'm not.
Yes and no. Most cops would be able to open fire, although the decision
would depend more on the internal procedures of the security corporation.
A secirity force authorized to use deadly force would most likely be able
to in such a situation.
>
> >Even a 'harmless' illusion has negative consequence, like causing mass
> >panic, which would be more than enough to gat a reckless endangerment or
> >at least creating a public nusiance charge. Just like yelling fire in a
> >crowded theater.
>
> Okay. A magician (not known to be then, but later agreed to be) is
> talking to a young lady in a bar, and casts a spell (confirmed by
> several witnesses). A young man storms up and punches the magician,
> breaking his jaw, while yelling "leave her alone you mindraping
> bastard". Police have to rescue the magician from the suddenly-angry bar
> crowd.
>
> The assaulter claims to be concerned that she was in danger of a mind
> control spell, being cast for carnal purposes: he certainly saw a spell
> being cast. The girl is his younger sister. The magician claims he was
> merely casting Healthy Glow.
>
> Who gets charged with what? Remember, mundanes have no way by the rules
> to know _what_ is being cast.
>
>
>
> My personal opinion? The young man free with his fists gets a police
> caution but is not charged. The magician is neither charged nor
> cautioned, but is told to be more careful about casting magic in public.
Possibly, although the man may be charged with assault. Otherwise there is
no crime that hase been commited.
>
> --
> 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: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:53:05 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971121001145.00c11840@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote:
>>Licence magicians and their spells and you know who knows what. If you
>>have a dead body with severe burns and a high background count, checking
>>the list of registered magicians with assorted Fire spells is as natural
>>as checking the list of registered gun owners whose firearms match a
>>corpse's wounds.
>
>Aah, but you said your self that the majority of crimes were commited with
>illegally owned guns, would not the same apply for spells.

Of course. But this doesn't prevent gun control legislation.

Registration helped to guarantee that legal gunowners were an extremely
well-behaved group (since even a drink-driving conviction would lose you
your firearms licence - if you can't be trusted with beer and a car, you
surely can't be trusted with firearms).

>The other
>problem is, there is no way to know or force someone to reveal which spells
>they know, so the registration would be pointless anyway.

Self-researched is hard to track, but you could at least log purchases
of spell formulae from registered talismongers and teaching by
instructors. It still remains a pain in the butt to find out who knows
what spells, and I see no way round that.

>The only time it
>would be an issue is if someone was caught using a spell that was
>destructive, but then that would be a worse crime than knowing the spell
>and not registering it, so what's the point?



>>Not unreasonable... unless the burden of proof is to show harm could be
>>caused, because without another mage watching it's impossible.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. If it was really an issue, then perhaps examination of
>the astral background would reveal the nature of the spell.

Too close to "lingering spell signature". Background count probably
doesn't give that clear a clue as to _what_ was cast: it's like looking
at ripples on a pond to determine whether the pebble thrown in there was
quartz, shale or sandstone.


>>If the onus is on the caster to show that the use of magic was safe and
>>reasonable, then fine. (You're hosting a barbecue with some friends, you
>>use your spell to cook some wieners, who's going to lodge a complaint?)
>
>Of course, the burden of proof is never on the defense (in the US), so this
>would't apply.

This is the UCAS, not the US or Britain.

The burden of proof can be shifted: as a signatory to the Official
Secrets Acts, there are circumstances where I am required to prove my
innocence. (Mostly concerning the results of disclosing classified
information) The same can be applied to magic (and isn't workable
otherwise).

>>What if you don't kill anyone?
>>
>>Do the cops have to wait for someone to die before they can act against
>>you?
>
>If you throw around mana, and it looks scary, they'll shoot you without
>waiting for people to drop, same as if you whipped out a gun. If you were
>just tossing around illusionary mana darts, then you deserved to be shot
>anyway for being a moron.

I can see ACLU landing all over that one unless there was a criminal
offence involved... "Slaughtered for Casting Harmless Illusions!" Again,
with the gun there's clearly stated and defined offences of "Threat" and
"Use". There's no such offence described for magic... I'd like it made
clearer that this would be the consequence.

--
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: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:40:12 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19971120172830.006faee8@********.mail.yale.edu>,
David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> writes
>At 08:15 PM 11/20/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>I'd like to see a "Threat" or "Use" offence for magic, same as
for
>>firearms: public display of what could be interpreted as dangerous magic
>>is an offence, just as waving a pistol around will get you arrested and
>>often charged - whether it's a fully loaded nine-mil automatic, or a
>>replica only able to fire blanks. (Even walking around firing blanks
>>will get you in a lot of trouble: in Britain several people have been
>>shot dead by armed police for doing so, usually while drunk).
>
>I'm pretty sure such laws exsist for magic. Spells may not be illegal, but
>their results can be. That is stated in sourcebooks. Therefore it seems
>to be a safe assumption that this applies to public display as well as
>murder/assault.

Safe for you and I to assume, but I've had rules lawyers demand to be
shown where it says they may not legally cast magic in public. There are
quite detailed rules in SR for what punishment you can expect for
waving, firing, or killing with assorted weapons; none at all for magic.
I believe it would make a great deal of sense to have such a law for
magic, and indeed if you play in a game of mine that's the case: but
I've seen nothing in the books to support this.

>>_Prove_ that the spell was dangerous. How could that harmless illusion
>>have harmed the security team in any way? Nobody has been hurt and no
>>damage was caused. What offence has taken place? Unless public use of
>>magic is regulated in and of itself, you can't legally take action until
>>someone is hurt or property is damaged.
>
>Physical damaging spells like fireball, hellblast cause a physical effect.
>It shouldn't take FBI crime analysis labs to prove that explosion could
>have killed.

Toss a pebble in the air, nuke pebble, like I said. No scorched earth,
no broken windows, no burning cars. What's to analyse?

>Also, spells leave traces in the astral that linger for
>awhile after the casting (pg 104 Awakenings). While you may not be able to
>tell who cast the spell from them (can't be used to identify spell
>signature of castor unless observed while casting), it seems to make sense
>that it would be possible to identify the type of spell used (especially if
>it was powerful enough to cause damage.)

Nope. Background counts (a) don't last long, (b) don't leave much
information. You might know a high-force spell was cast and what mood
the caster was in, but it wouldn't give information on _what_ spell.


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

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 21
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Noticing Spellcasting and Magic and the Law
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:45:22 -0500
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:30:39 -0600 Q <Scott.E.Meyer@*******.EDU> writes:
>[snipping previous arguments]
>
>I just had a thought.


Really? Anything in particular?

:):):)


--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Noticing Spellcasting and 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.