Well, you're not wrong that it can be used invasively, just as a gun can be used to kill instead of used for target practice on a tin can.  But only one of those uses of a gun would count as a violation of the Laws ... the same could be said of thought transmission, in that light.

I get where you're coming from. I guess it's kind of like that mind control law. Sure, you can use mind control to get a date with a supermodel, but you could also use mind control to help your pregnant friend kick heroin. Surely that would be a good reason to use mind control, right.

Leaving the offensive stuff behind for a minute. Forget about offending, scaring or confusing a defenseless mortal for kicks. There is still the inconvenience issue, and I don't think there's a work around. Call display is a Godsend, and it allows me to not answer my phone more than I answer it. If I really want to dig into a book or something, I'll unplug the phone and turn off the cell. Come to think of it, Harry unplugs the phone when he's doing big magic too.

So imagine someone who really wants to get into a book, or a doctor who is in the middle of open heart surgery, or a wizard who is so focussed on a delicate magic ritual that he can't spare even a little focus on a call block. Then just at the critical moment, he gets a brain wave. "Hey, we're going to Mac's. Meet us there".

A bit melodramatic, but it's still an invasion of privacy.

No he used her true name to snap her outta the funk she was in cause


the rest of the time they simply willed and viola insta comlink short range though.

Good point.

Thinking about this some more, I figure it can be spun in one of two ways.

WN Spoilers

But that's not reading someone's mind; that's sending a message.  No invasion is occurring here.

My bad. I had thought he had picked up something that she hadn't actively transmitted to him.

In any event, I think transmissions can be every bit as invasive as reading. I find spam email invasive enough. But this has added problems. Without breaking that other law (about taking away someones will), you could drive them insane. Send them messages they think are from God. Or make them think that their dog is telling them to go out and kill people. The possibilities are endless.

Someone mentioned that knowing a True Name is required for a transmission (again going by WN). But that isn't really a defense for non-Wizards. Regular folk aren't that protective of their Names. You could pick up a bunch without really trying.

I'm not overly fond of mind reading as presented in most games or fiction, but this Law puts a neat spin on mind-raping and that makes it more interesting. And I have to say that I love this passage from the article:

But if that happens, every effort should be made to throw the book at them—in as entertaining a way as possible. The moment a player decides to "break" a mystery by peeking inside the heads of those involved, the story stops being about that mystery, and starts being instead about that choice and its consequences. Go nuts with it!

That's the kind of thing that made SotC gold, and I have high hopes for Dresden.

Other comments and questions:

1) Seems a soul gaze would reveal one or more Aspects. What might be a difficult to implement in other systems already has solid mechanics behind it with Fate. Nice.

2) One implementation of mind-reading that I really liked comes from Terry Pratchett. A god says that you can't read a mind because a mind isn't a book that can be read. But you can discern the shape of a mind and determine what kind of person someone is. That seems like a perfect opportunity for an Empathy stunt in SotC or a supernatural ability or spell in Dresden. In game terms, you wouldn't be able to pick out someones network password, but you could reveal one or more Aspects. So if you did try a spell like this, does anyone think it would be a violation of the Third Law, or would it get a pass because it is essentially a mini-soulgaze?

3) Harry tells us that there is no such thing as an expert in defense against mental magic. No one is allowed to practice it (although he didn't know about the Blackstaff at that point), so there is no way to practice defense. I think it would be cool if a cabal of younger wizards began experimenting with this type of magic, just so they can hone their defenses against black magicians (of course).

EDIT:  Oops, breaking the Laws give a stunt, not an aspect.  My mistake.

Nothing says it can't be both. From what I know of the system, backing up your stunts with related aspects is a heck of a good idea.

Some other aspects for Harry:

"Call me old fashioned but..." - applies to his dealings with women in general, but also the specific instances when he gets in way over his head because a girl needed his help.

Magical Thug - in pretty much every book, he describes himself as having plenty of magical muscle, but little finesse. This aspect is invoked when tossing raw power around, and can be compelled whenever he tries something subtle. The various instances where he does pull off something subtle are perfect examples of a player buying off a compel, since he usually describes how unused he is to working with magic like that.

Lanky - Harry is really tall. He uses his height in pretty much every book, describing reach advantages in hand-to-hand combat, running speed and more. Since learning about aspects, every time I see one of those passages I think "that's an aspect invocation".

Personally I wouldn't give the second guy a pass.  Intent matters here, or at least it seems to in the fact that the laws are written to enforce the spirit of not harming another.  Seriously wanting to kill someone with magic might not harm you *as much* as all out killing them, but deciding to go through with it, and then pulling the magic trigger, only to be outdrawn by the other mage, in my opinion that would result in both mages taking the stunt.  Intent in this case would count as much as the actual deed itself.  I might as a GM give the one who didn't kill the guy a pass with the white council, but as far as in his own mind, he should suffer the same consequences. 

I see your point, and I'm seeing errors in my own logic.

I'm an easy-going GM though. Ultimately, I'd probably leave it up to the player. If he had wanted the kill for character or story reasons, and felt the stunt fit  with his character, I'd allow him to take it. Forcing it on him if he didn't want it might be a little mean.

Ultimately, it comes down to two (or more) story paths. In one, the character becomes tougher and darker. In the other, maybe the naive character keeps skating around the edges of danger. It could work in the right hands.

As far as a truly accidental effect.  Well I wouldn't make them take the impact themselves.  If witnessed to brought to the WC attention they might suffer its ruling but they wouldn't take the 'damage' to their souls that they would if they had killed with intent. 

Thinking about this one more, I'm wondering how this would come about around the table.

I wouldn't come up with a complication like that on a new player just to spice things up. That would just be mean gming.

I would throw a complication like that at a seasoned player, who I had a good bond of trust with. And I would take the players ideas about his character into consideration. In that case, maybe giving out the stunt would be appropriate. For a reason, sometimes intent doesn't matter. Case in point, Molly Carpenter. (the book is in softcover, so it's not a spoiler, right?)

And there's always a chance that the player could suggest a situation like that, between sessions.

So what happens to the character really depends on why the situation was created by the various players (including the gm).

This Law is about the most problematic of them all for me.

I'm not sure if it's mentioned explicitly, but in general the Laws seem to fit with the real world Wiccan Rede. "An' it harm none, do what thou will."

For the rest of the Laws, the harm is not only pretty obvious, but we have explicit examples from the books. We've seen what happens when you twist the will of a mortal, or what can happen when you reach beyond the Outer Gates.

This Law seems murkier to me. In Fool Moon Harry says that the harm is destruction of the personality. Bob corrects him though, saying that most personalities can survive a transformation. So how do you define harm, and if there is no harm, is it really Black Magic?

Going back to an earlier question about "accidental changes"...I don't like the idea of a spell that was not supposed to transform anyone accidentally transforming them. That has no interest for me. But we have seen that young magicians who are learning about their powers (and may be ignorant about the laws) have a kind of wish fulfillment thing going for them. So their "enemies" (school rivals, not ravening psychopaths. Usually) might find themselves with tails or weird skin diseases. Or they may feel bad that their pudgy best friend gets picked on all the time, so that friend wakes up with a Bowflex body. Or their significant other (boy or girl) wakes up to other, ahem, blessings.

Along those later lines, I can see adult wizards being paid truckloads of money for those exact same services. If the subject truly wants it, is it Black Magic? Maybe, maybe not. Good intentions didn't really help in Proven Guilty (other than getting the Doom instead of the Sword).

And didn't Harry transform him and Susan into wind (temporarily) in Storm Front?

So confusing.

Warden Swords are all kinds of interesting, when it comes down to it, but I think that some of the non-Law-breaking-ness of it has to do with immediacy.  If you pin someone to a wall while your friend wields an axe, that's a lot greyer than creating a sword well in advance of being face to face with a living human target who you mean to do harm.

That works. Harry has mentioned the "self-defense" clause from time to time. With the swords, cutting someone down in the heat of battle is probably ok, but using it to cut through their house wards and stabbing them in their sleep would more likely be a violation.