Alternate idea about hexing

[BumblingBear]

One thing worth noting is the idea that Hexing primarily occurs to objects the wizards doesn't understand.  This makes sense with the age of a wizard rather than his powers defining what he hexes and what he doesn't.  Harry owns a gun, and he's a smart guy so he probably knows how to clean and maintain it as well, which means he probably has a pretty good understanding of how guns work, therefore his magic will only hex guns when he sets it to that task and accidents would be minimal.

I agree with this idea and it seems to go more with the flavor of the book than other theories mentioned.

I think part of why tech is hexed is because old wizards teach new wizards who become old wizards.

The wizarding community does not understand or like technology.

Elaine for instance seems not only more technologically savvy than Harry, but also just more "clued-in" to pop culture and the world.

I attribute this to her learning in the Summer court after Justin compared to Harry learning with Eb after Justin.

The Sidhe seem much more pragmatic about such things.  I mean, their knights don't seem to have a problem with tech at all.

[sinker]

Personally, I've never stood by the idea of hexing guns. Truthfully, if you can hex a gun, what's stopping that same hex from fouling up all the doorknobs in the same zone (mechanically speaking, one is about as complicated as another)?

Ok, this bothers me. At it's simplest a doorknob is a single gear with it's teeth meshed into the bolt. Modern doorknobs can be slightly more complex but not much. Depending on the gun there could be several mechanisms and a chemical reaction to boot. Here's a good comparison. With no maintenance and regular use how long before a gun fails in one way or another (jams, misfires, etc)? A week? A month? Same thing with a doorknob and it'll last years, maybe even a decade or two.

Besides... in the books Harry tends to sling around a lot of magic, but still those pesky bad-guys seem to be able to sling bullets his way, shouldn't the "Angry Wizard who is now full of holes" aspect be compelled to jam their guns? But this never happens in the stories, he always has to find a way to separate bad-guy and gun.

This is an easy question to answer. When something fouls up and messes Harry up it's a compel and he doesn't have the fate points to buy out. When something fouls up and it's good it's invoking for effect and as mentioned before harry's probably saving up all the fate points he can get for the big finale.

[devonapple]

This is an easy question to answer. When something fouls up and messes Harry up it's a compel and he doesn't have the fate points to buy out. When something fouls up and it's good it's invoking for effect and as mentioned before harry's probably saving up all the fate points he can get for the big finale.

There is one canonical example early on in the series in which Harry does hex the guns of an entire group of mercenaries, but that maneuver does not get repeated often.

[Tallyrand]

There is one canonical example early on in the series in which Harry does hex the guns of an entire group of mercenaries, but that maneuver does not get repeated often.

I'm not sure what you're trying to point out, but if you're saying it's inconsistent because he doesn't do it more often that's simple to answer.  Intentionally hexing takes time and effort, in the RPG this is represented by it taking an action (and I personally would say it costs a stress if you're hexing all of the guns in a zone) and it's not guaranteed.  So he would have to make the choice of going all or nothing and either successfully hexing the guns or dying rather dramatically or take a more balanced approach and do something that will definitely allow him to survive the guns at least for a little while.

[Richard_Chilton]

A long, long time ago when I was in high school, back when computers were relatively more expensive (why do I feel like I should be talking about walking ten miles, up hill, both ways?), you always used to do your code long hand before getting near a computer.  As in sit there, with pencil and paper, writing out
10 Input X
20 Print X
05 Print "Input a number"
15 Print "you entered", X
13 Clear screen
30 End

yes, the numbering did go that way because you can't copy and paste or insert and delete, entire sections of code when you're writing it out long hand.

I can see Luccio doing something like that, writing code that would work if someone else entered it in a computer, or fooling around with pseudo code and algorithms.

Either that, or treating it the way we treat 6th century pottery.  Academics research the means of making it, who made it, how this culture was different from that culture, but very few of those academics are potters.  If Luccio had said "My hobby is 6th century pottery" you would expect her to read about it and know about it, but not necessary be able to make a pot like they did in the 6th century.

Richard

[devonapple]

I can see Luccio doing something like that, writing code that would work if someone else entered it in a computer, or fooling around with pseudo code and algorithms.

Another likely possibility is that she is aware of current software trends, the state of the industry, the kinds of things which computers can do these days. It's like someone who gets a Science magazine, but is not any sort of professional scientist. It may range from simple entertainment to a critical need-to-know, but there remain plenty of things Luccio can know and understand about computers which would help her know current trends and technological possibilities, and would allow her to competently coordinate with mortal computer-users (like allies in the Venatori Umbrorum, for starters, who may have any number of hackers or other technological specialists whose work directly supports the White Council's efforts) but may in no way translate to an ability to work a laptop without hexing it accidentally.

And *this* is how *I* choose to interpret Luccio's experience with computers.

[sinker]

Either that, or treating it the way we treat 6th century pottery.  Academics research the means of making it, who made it, how this culture was different from that culture, but very few of those academics are potters.  If Luccio had said "My hobby is 6th century pottery" you would expect her to read about it and know about it, but not necessary be able to make a pot like they did in the 6th century.

Taking this to another level it's already been proven that as long as no energy is running through it a computer is less liable to fail (Murphy unplugs her computer when Dresden shows up). Perhaps she builds computers or fiddles with the hardware (so long as it's not plugged in)?

[UmbraLux]

Ok, this bothers me. At it's simplest a doorknob is a single gear with it's teeth meshed into the bolt. Modern doorknobs can be slightly more complex but not much. Depending on the gun there could be several mechanisms and a chemical reaction to boot. Here's a good comparison. With no maintenance and regular use how long before a gun fails in one way or another (jams, misfires, etc)? A week? A month? Same thing with a doorknob and it'll last years, maybe even a decade or two.

A Glock has 34 parts.  A basic pin tumbler lock has 15+ in the core alone, not including the bolt and handle assembly.  That's a fairly simple lock - I have a more complex version on the house. 

[sinker]

You have just proved my point. A glock has twice as many bits, and on top of that a gun requires a chemical reaction, whereas the doorknob is simple physics. I would point out that a pin-tumbler lock is by no means the least complex doorknob, but then again the glock is by no means the least complex gun. Seems to me the comparison is fair.

[UmbraLux]

Was going to edit the post but saw you'd posted.   

I posted that simply to put things in perspective.  I think they are roughly equivalent.  As such, hexing guns should be rare (as it is in the books) but not impossible.  Similarly, I don't think hexing a lock is entirely out of the question...but should also be rare.

In the interests of full disclosure, I think the Glock is one of (if not the) simplest of modern pistols.  Similarly, the 5 pin tumbler lock is about the simplest lock you'd consider using on a door you actually want to lock. 

[sinker]

I'd argue that the gun is maybe a bit more susceptible, but I'm really not arguing against hexing doorknobs. They are simple machines and therefore should be hexed on a 5-8 by the RAW (I'd say depending on the gun it'd be a 4-8).

But at this point we've sort-of hijacked the thread and should probably ease back a bit. Going back to something Bear said a bit ago:

Or the wizard could just

(click to show/hide)

come up with a spell like Harry did to be on TV

and then practice it enough that it gets easier.

As stated before, a wizard with more control should have an easier time of it.

I'd say this is likely a decent way to go about it, however even the wizard with the best control is likely to hex something every now and then. You can't change the core of what you are. If you want no hexing whatsoever, then it's probably better if you choose something other than a mortal spellcaster.

[Peteman]

I fail to understand your point. We're not talking about using theory in game. We're talking about legitimately hexing the ever-loving hell out of things in game. Which I do suppose is a fair bit odd; hypotheticals within hypotheticals vs supposed reality within hyoptheticals.

From what I got from tutori's posts, he seemed to be insisting that Luccio could use a computer, given computers are her hobby, she has a lot of control, and that a purely theoretical interest wouldn't make any sense. I was countering his argument by arguing that Luccio never stated she ever used one, countered an inquiry into her hobby with an explanation that would not run contrary to a wizard's paradigm of screwing up technology, and cited an example of someone having a purely theoretical interest in something.

[toturi]

From what I got from tutori's posts, he seemed to be insisting that Luccio could use a computer, given computers are her hobby, she has a lot of control, and that a purely theoretical interest wouldn't make any sense. I was countering his argument by arguing that Luccio never stated she ever used one, countered an inquiry into her hobby with an explanation that would not run contrary to a wizard's paradigm of screwing up technology, and cited an example of someone having a purely theoretical interest in something.

I was simply stating that Luccio never denies using computers. She has categorically stated that she reads about them and I have stated that to extrapolate from that statement to say that she cannot use one is as illogical as saying that she can. The additional point about she having a lot of control (while I agree with this point) was not made by me.

[devonapple]

What about a "line" of circles between the computer and the caster to "block" magic?

My apologies for just now getting back to this:
Do you mean like a "cable" of circles? Like someone taking a big stack of metal washers and slipping the cable through them? (I also imagine the Ring Transporter from "Stargate")
Or do you mean a string of Circles crossing each other like a long line of Venn Diagrams?

[devonapple]

She has categorically stated that she reads about them and to extrapolate from that statement to say that she cannot use one is as illogical as saying that she can.

It is not illogical in any way: the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards in the setting is that they can't use computers. Therefore the default assumption, unless specified otherwise, is that a given mortal wizard can't use computers, or has enough difficulty as to make it extremely prohibitive and troublesome. The weight of evidence in the fiction is pretty clear, and it is fallacious logic to take this one line and twist it in the direction needed to justify Luccio = 1337 haxx0r.

Luccio could easily have said "Yes, Harry, I use computers, because I have such fine control over my magical field that I can play WoW when I'm not busy fighting the Red War. You should try it sometime. I'll send you an account code for Minecraft!" She clearly did not state it, just like Harry has never denied that he's a serial killer, nor does he ever deny that he wears pink panties, or kills children. You can only go so far with the rhetoric of deniability before it devolves into the old chestnut of "have you stopped beating your wife?"