a question came to my mind when I read through the laws of the white council: Is a mindreading a breaking og the third law, if the person whose mind ist read agrees to this?By the letter of the law, yes. It might not get you the lawbreaker stunt but wardens probably wouldn't care...
Also, what level of mind reading are we talking? Unless the person doing it is an expert (in a field that the White Council doesn't teach) there could be problems learning only certain things.not to mention psychic damage.
'truth magic' and by exstention mind reading can have wide implications for an investigative game.
By the letter of the law, yes. It might not get you the lawbreaker stunt but wardens probably wouldn't care... - UmbraLuxI don't know that's true. The letter of the Law is "invade," which by definition excludes permission. Unlike the first Law, the third is written in a way that implies a manner and motive. It still crosses the same lines of self/world either way, but I could see mind-reading with permission as a case where the Wardens might be more lenient than the Lawbreaker stunt. So long as they believe you only looked at what you were permitted to of course.
I don't know that's true. The letter of the Law is "invade," which by definition excludes permission. Unlike the first Law, the third is written in a way that implies a manner and motive. It still crosses the same lines of self/world either way, but I could see mind-reading with permission as a case where the Wardens might be more lenient than the Lawbreaker stunt. So long as they believe you only looked at what you were permitted to of course.Sounds like a game to me.
If batman could read minds there would hardly be a need for detective-ism, would it?
I actually wasn't referring to her- but to(not sure if that deserved spoiler text, but not taking a risk).(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Those who say that if it's done with consent and good intentions believe that they would be acting within the spirit of the law and those who say that any fiddling with the mind whatsoever is an unequivocal NO, believe in the letter of the law. - FarbotBut the letter of the law is still "invade" - a word that presupposes a lack of consent and ill-motive. The first two laws say "never take a life" and "never transform another," neither of which account for motive - that the third law is phrased in a way that does imply manner and motive, as opposed to saying "never read the thoughts of another" or "never enter the thoughts of another," seems like it should matter, not least because we're talking about things that have magical consequence as well as legal.
I actually wasn't referring to her- but to(not sure if that deserved spoiler text, but not taking a risk).(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
But the letter of the law is still "invade" - a word that presupposes a lack of consent and ill-motive. The first two laws say "never take a life" and "never transform another," neither of which account for motive - that the third law is phrased in a way that does imply manner and motive, as opposed to saying "never read the thoughts of another" or "never enter the thoughts of another," seems like it should matter, not least because we're talking about things that have magical consequence as well as legal.Sounds like something your PC could argue during the trial. Good social conflict there.