ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: darkfire14 on July 05, 2011, 04:10:45 AM
-
Ok the big and bad thing about mind reading is that it drives you mad because you create a connection to the targets mind and take their thoughts into yourself, blurring the line between your mind and the targets. This of course causes bad mojo as their thoughts become your own as well. However would it be violating the laws of magic to read someone's mind through through a magical object to filter the thoughts from a person's mind. For instance, having an enchanted object like a mirror that can tap into a target's mind and display their thoughts on the surface of a mirror. Or rig some sort of "Magical Radio" and listen to someone's thoughts with it? Technically you're hearing/seeing the person's thoughts in the 3rd person in this case so you won't get the problem with the Madness. But is it still a violation of the laws of magic?
-
If you enchant an object to allow you to pick up the thoughts and emotions of others, I feel it should be limited to strong emotions and active thoughts someone is experiencing at that time. As well as putting a limited range on the item, as there would be way too much static otherwise. This, perhaps, could be done through a spell as well, one just needs to make sure they aren't making an active connection with the target's mind. On the other side, if you'd make an item to scan a mind deeper, you would create a connection between the person and the item, which, most likely, is an even more alien and disturbing experience than connecting with another (human) mind.
-
I think that saying the big bad thing about mind magic is that their thoughts might leak into yours is a bit like saying that the big bad thing about using death magic is that you might get the victim's blood all over you.
The worst part about black magic is that you increasingly become the sort of person who uses black magic. Maybe it starts as a useful trick to help figure out why your friend is in a bad mood, so that you can cheer them up. Then it becomes a useful trick to keep yourself from getting caught in a lie. Then you just can't resist using that useful trick to win a few bucks at the poker table. Eventually it passes through being a useful trick to being another sense that you use alongside sight and hearing, constantly invading other people's minds because getting things done works better that way, and because their privacy is of little concern next to your convenience. And at some point, you realize that instead of just listening to thier thoughts, you can make other people's lives (and your own) better with just a few little tweaks to their decision-making ... and so on.
As to your specific example, I don't know. I would think that using magic to create a device which has as its sole function the invasion of minds would be no better than casting the spell directly. But then, the example of Warden's Swords blurs the line, so it's hard to say. Perhaps the Swords are ok because at the point of creation they don't NEED to be used to kill (they could be used to injure or fend off attacks). If that's the mitigating logic, it wouldn't apply to mind-reading enchanted items, which can't be used in a way that would not be law-breaking. But the answer is unclear, regardless.
-
Well, first we should realize that the acts that break the laws of magic are only really, really bad in the Dresdenverse, because of how magic works (generally). Killing someone in self-defense isn't bad and won't lead you down the path of being a monster. Nor would killing people in a war. Let's face it, Molly's GOALS were not bad. Getting people to not kill themselves and unborn children via drug overdoses and abuse is a good thing. Theoretically her methodology was even quite good. The problem was that it was done by magic, which creates all sorts of problems. It has to be something you are totally committed to, and gets warped by second thoughts, reservations, and petty feelings you might never act on in real life.
It does make magic items that do this stuff really interesting, from Laws of Magic standpoint. From the standpoint of the Laws as laws of men, it seems like making it and each use are separate infractions. However, as Laws of (Magical) Physics, it would seem like you wouldn't really get backlash from using it, since it doesn't really require the same sort of dedicated will and commitment of beliefs to use a ritual would (or making it probably does).
-
The Coucil would most likely execute you for making and using with equal fervor.
I also don't agree with the assumption that using an item to do black magic shields you from backlash. Else there would be a lot of perfectly healthy black magic practitioners.
-
The Coucil would most likely execute you for making and using with equal fervor.
Without question.
I also don't agree with the assumption that using an item to do black magic shields you from backlash. Else there would be a lot of perfectly healthy black magic practitioners.
In lore there is no reason why there would be backlash when the item is used. Using a magic item is a lot like using a gun as far as intent/will goes, if it requires any thought at all (e.g. Harry's Duster).
It leads to an interesting quandary for the Fire Law, since a wand of fire doesn't seem like Black Magic to make, but it could be easily used to kill. This is a LOT like wards killing people. With other laws, you usually can't stumble over a violation like that. So there's certainly some things to struggle with in the game here.
Now, in terms of game balance, this would be considered an exploit and almost undoubtedly needs to be stopped for the good of the game. In terms of lore, I'd consider this an exploit in the same manner that a steam engine is exploiting the laws of thermodynamics. So largely I consider this an interesting topic in an academic sense.
-
well I dunno about using an item and such. But I was considering a spell that allows you to passively hear thoughts that are particularly strong. I guess the easiest way would be to consider someone broad casting their thoughts. Though I've no idea if people actually do that with strong thoughts in the Dresdenverse. I guess I should state that the spell would be cast on ones self to increase I dunno your mental sensitivity to strong thoughts and emotions or something like that. An entirely passive way to maybe sometimes read minds.
-
The example items provided do not, in my estimation, really do the same thing as a bona fide mindreading spell. They seem to, and depending on the narrative style of a given fiction, they may as well be mindreading effects. But keeping one's mind out of another mind, and using a proxy effect (as described) to filter out the good bits, leaves room for misinterpretation or outright deceit, I feel. Which is fine by me. It's like Soulgazing: much of it is subject to interpretation, and can be seriously skewed by a target's self-image, so it's not really an in-depth mental catalog. Soulgazing also comes with a price: the target gets to see your soul as well.
The real poser is: how is this item deciding what to present and what to leave out?
-
The real poser is: how is this item deciding what to present and what to leave out?
Give it an aspect or two as direction / purpose. A Sorting Hat will just categorize people while a Collar of Truth attempts to prevent the wearer from telling a known falsehood. (Honest Deceit on the other hand isn't affected at all.)
-
I would let someone use as empathy enhancing magical item so they get a roll of empathy 10 at 5 lore, almost mind reading but perfectly within the bounds of the laws of magic.
-
As to your specific example, I don't know. I would think that using magic to create a device which has as its sole function the invasion of minds would be no better than casting the spell directly. But then, the example of Warden's Swords blurs the line, so it's hard to say. Perhaps the Swords are ok because at the point of creation they don't NEED to be used to kill (they could be used to injure or fend off attacks). If that's the mitigating logic, it wouldn't apply to mind-reading enchanted items, which can't be used in a way that would not be law-breaking.
Sure they can. Just use them only on monsters. The Law of Magic regarding mind reading and mind control only apply against doing such things on humans. Faeries, ghouls, vampires of all courts, etc are fair game. So if you made a mind reading item and only used it on non-humans, or better yet, create one that could only be used on non-humans, you're in the clear.
-
.... I would not envy the person who tried to read the mind of most of those things.
Something to consider. Most enchanted items require a bit of the person's will and magic to activate. That makes it still your magic doing any of these things.
-
Fair point.
Another point of difference may be how the magic is used in the enchanted item. A Warden's Sword, for example, is basically passive magic. The magic used basically improves the quality of the sword, causing it to be capable of inflicting more damage -- but when someone swings the sword, they aren't releasing a spell. A mind-reading enchanted item would be an active item, in that you would trigger the item for effect. (Yes, I understand that a Warden's Sword has limited uses per day, but this is a balance mechanic more than a release of magical energy.) Shapechanging, by the way, is similar to the Swords in that respect: magic is used to alter one's body, but there is no magic inherent in the claw strike once the transformation is complete.
So perhaps that would be a useful standard: if triggering the enchanted item results in a spell being cast by the item, then it could count as lawbreaking, whereas if the magic is considered a passive benefit (even if it happens to have limited charges that are used when the player chooses to use them) is not.
If this standard were used, then you could have, for example, an item that alerts you when someone near you has hostile thoughts toward you. As a spell, this would break the law, but as a 'passive item' effect, it might not. Of course, the Warden's might disagree with this logic.
-
For a mind reading item to work, something has to be driving the ship. In the Dresden universe I don't see how you do this without involving either your will, or another entity (like a summoned spirit). Mind reading requires consciousness. The sorting hat example above works great for Harry Potter. For Harry Dresden, that hat needs a spirit.
So, if someone (something) else lives in the item and is doing the black magic, you probably don't get as twisted up.
-
I would think that if it's a summoned being doing it then you wouldn't have any issues at all. Then again I guess if a being you summoned kills you still get the lawbreaker for it. Or do you? I don't actually remember but that sounds right.
-
I would think that if it's a summoned being doing it then you wouldn't have any issues at all. Then again I guess if a being you summoned kills you still get the lawbreaker for it. Or do you? I don't actually remember but that sounds right.
I don't know if there's a ruling on this, but I would tend to rule that if you are magically compelling a summoned creature to kill, then the magic is directly responsible for the killing (double points if you compel a mortal to kill another mortal, thus breaking the First and Fourth Laws with a single spell). If you summoned a creature then failed to control it and deaths resulted, the situation might not be the same.
Of course, others likely have differing views.
-
If you summon a creature, bind it to a hat and use it to sort out people in to certain factions, there would be little trouble. If that same hat/creature was putting subtle compelling magic on every it wore, you'd be in trouble. You summoned it, bound it and told everyone "It's perfectly safe!" (while thinking 'Mostly...') That means its your responsibility.
It might not get you the same cumulative tempation as doing it yourself, even if you purposely made the hat to create Manchurian canditates, . But if you done it with one item, why not with others? Why not make good on those hidden commands you have implanted? In practice it would be different, but I'd say the same mechanics apply.
Now if you could somehow enchant an item to perfom something like the Sight/Soulgaze on people, you could glean some information. But, as with using it yourself, you'd have to interpret the images yourself. Someone seems angry, okay, but why? Towards whom is it a murderous hate directed? Is that a shadow of a man looming over her? Is it an abusive father or a dark spirit?
-
As Masurao refers to, we know that magic items CAN be used to affect the mind. And the creator of those items got away with it for a while.
So, can magic items be created that can affect the mind? Check
Would they be legal according to the Wardens? Probably not.
Would the creation and/or use of them force the Lawbreaker stunt on the character? That is a GM + Player decision.
Can the items be used to safely read the minds of beings that would be otherwise unsafe to read? Possibly it would act as a fuse, preventing really intense emotions like hunger, rage and lust from overwhelming the caster, but truly alien minds the device would probably not function on. Worst case scenario, your mind reading magic item is corrupted and taken over by the alien mind it is used to read.
But the guiding principle has got to be what it in the text. The players can use mindreading magic, but then the game becomes about the consequences of using such magic instead of being about the solving the mystery. The campaign then revolves around whether the players hide what they have done, or defend what they have done, both with respect to each other and with respect to the White Council.