She blinks a bit, folding up her laptop and stretching out a little, a timid little yawn slipping from her lips as she shakes away the morning grumminess and grumpiness a little, before flouncing out of her seat and toe-walking out to the door. Solicitors don't come here too often, and she always feels like there's more she's supposed to do with them, but really the least she can do is politely hear them out... 

She swings open the door and blinks dubiously at the walrus. 

"Hello!"

He gives her a jaunty little wave.

"Do you have a few minutes to talk about magic?"

"...Sure!" 

Her shoulders fold up a little, and she sinks back into her hoody a little, before blushing softly. She steps back a bit, and hums. 

"Would you like to come in or handle things out here? Never feels like it's the right weather to leave the door open, these days..." 

"Oh, thank you! I'd like to come in, if it's all right. I'm not really suited for the climate."

And trudging up and down stairs doesn't really help. Luckily walruses can adjust the amount of bloodflow to their skin, instead of sweating. Much more civilized.

"I'm Hammond, by the way. Hammond Burns."

"And... you can call me Topaz." 

She reaches out her hand on reflex to shake, before freezing a little in awkwardness. He can hold that clipboard fine, but it's rude to just assume he can do things like that. 

He reaches out to put the tip of his flipper in her hand with the dignity of someone who has been dealing with handed people all his life.

"A pleasure to meet you, Topaz," he replies, gently shaking her hand.

Oh that's neat. 

She ?squeezes? gently, and then bobs back, and turns and walks slowly past the entryway of her flat to her kitchen. It's a pretty empty space - flat brown walls and cheap porcelain tiling giving it a somewhat threadbare look. 

She plops herself down at her simple kitchen table, and nestles back in her chair when she gets there. 

He follows her into the kitchen, sets his clipboard on the table, and heaves himself up into a chair.

"Alright! So as I said, I've been sent around to ask you some questions about magic," he explains. "See, your world is ... call it 'cooked' enough that it's about time for it to start manifesting a magic system. But the form that magic is going to take here is more or less up in the air. So I just want to ask you a few questions about how you think it should work."

"Oh!" 

She smiles warmly, a little childish grin on her lips and stars in her eyes. 

"Sure! Really, it's the least I can do for advanced warning about that, much less a chance to make a difference." 

And also she's a weeb but she is not going to volunteer that directly yetttttt

"Excellent!"

This is really a much warmer reception all around then he's used to. He picks up the clipboard again to review the list of questions.

"So my first question is a broad one. But don't worry if you can't answer it — we can skip any questions you don't want to answer. Do you think magic should be 'hard' or 'soft'? That is, should it be quantifiable, following mathematical or physical rules, or should it be more based on feelings, language, or another less formal system? And this is something of a spectrum, not just an either-or."

She bites her lip a little, and ponders. 

"I think that depends on what you're looking for, and at what level of abstraction? Say... If we're talking about it on the fiction level, I feel like I tend to prefer the work of the kind of person who can and will write a 'hard' magic system. I think for a lot of people, a soft magic system is sort of... an excuse not to think too much about the economics of things and how it'd work out in practice? And hard magic systems are often better and more evenly distributed, and I like it when people can work together on big projects and make infrastructure. But on the other hand... Soft magic systems enable a lot of really cool things. So in that sense, I like soft magic systems, but you've got to commit to it, you know? Having arbitrary magic stuff that only works once and is never mentioned again is one of my biggest pet peeves, but having a world where the sort of skills and traits that aren't as easy to apply in a hard magic system are rewarded - or at least not punished - is good, I think." 

"... not ... punished," he mumbles, scribbling on the clipboard.

Somehow.

"Okay — so would it be fair to say that you think magic should be consistent and repeatable? And what kinds of skills and traits do you have in mind?"

"I think so. At least, unless there's some meta-rule about repeatability that is itself consistent, probably?" 

Her eyes gaze down at the scribbling. Objectively, it's probably not weirder then a walrus that animate and/or intelligent, but it's still pretty baffling! 

"Ideally, being - virtuous? Abstractly, I'm big on contractualist and - servicey -  ethics, but really there's a lot of options that can work out okay with a bit of meddling and the ability to just totally ignore the normal need for proxy measures that a magic system would usually have. Being kind and welcoming and non-bigotted and congenial and wise and making people happier and..." 

She sighs a little. 

"I would love to say something like 'filial piety' but a lot of people's families are really profoundly terrible. But I do think that the internet enables opt-inable communities that are selective enough that I think they're fair, in the way that a family isn't, persay? So maybe something based on that sort of thing, or some sort of modified 'golden rule' heuristic or CEV thing. But speaking aesthetically, rather then making a good world... I think the thing is more that you probably don't want something too too overwhelmingly g-loaded? Always feel like in contexts where things aren't that selected that can just be depressing and - unappetizing to see, given how much that determines about people already." 

"Hmm."

Hammond holds a flipper to his chin in thought.

"There's a lot to unpack there. But, just to be clear, you mean that you'd prefer a magic system where people can get good outcomes without necessarily being more intelligent in a general sense? And that instead, you would want the mental attributes that make someone suited to harnessing magic to be those virtues you mentioned? Or is it that you care more about the outcome being that people with those attributes prosper, and it's less important that the attributes be directly tied into how people use magic?"

"It's a little hard to answer that...." 

She wrings her hands out gently against her thighs. 

"Sorry if this goes against the point of your question, but are you asking for my opinion, ignoring consequentialist considerations? If so, I do like that - I really like intelligent people and honestly I'd expect I'd do pretty well in a g-loaded magic system? But that feels - kind of unfair, in some nebulous sense, because of how rich get richer it would be a lot of the time to be like that. But being intelligent is a virtue that I think you should be allowed to celebrate? But I think that just having it not be too negatively correlated is enough for that still to be true. So..." 

She stimmily rocks in her chair.

"If you're asking more about if the outcome that I care about is specifically that people with non-intelligence virtues prosper in the world after magic... It's not that I care about that too too much? I just would want magic to make good things happen, and rewarding good people and people making good things happen seems like one of the more obvious ways to make that happen. But If we're talking about something equally good, in terms of some sort of levelized QoL years measurement or whatever ends up being the best way to magically reify morality, then I kind of like the idea of people being rewarded for that, though? I want everyone to prosper, including unvirtous and unintelligent people, but given a given 'level' of good, assuming away problems about marginal utility and disutility, I think it's okay and maybe even actively 'good' - even if we're kind of assuming that away here - to reward people for goodness, and I think I'd feel satisfied seeing that happen?" 

"Hmm. So the thing—"

He trails off in thought.

"I think I should give you a little more background on this whole process. So the idea is that my fellow canvassers and I all survey people, and then we feed their answers back to the Will of Magic, who uses them to decide what kind of magic system to be. But afterward, the magic is 'fixed', and it works however it is that it works."

"So it's not that there's some maximum achievable 'level' of goodness that you can optimize toward with your answers here, exactly. You're being asked to give input on the systems in which people will live, but none of us have direct control over what those people will experience, see. It's like rule utilitarianism instead of act utilitarianism. But you can definitely advocate for systems that reward — or even just enable — the things you want to see. Does that help clarify?"

She rolls her head over to the side a little, and hums softly. 

"In one sense, my answers are probably much the same whether my input is one in one or one in ten thousand of the - total input, here? Good is good, whether or not it's diluted. Though... I guess how much it's sort of... a conventional vote matters a bunch, and if so who's voting and how the votes are aggregated? There's probably a different answer I could give if the incentive from that is to gravitate towards the sort of options that other people would think to suggest and that other people would support, over what I'd prefer, myself? Mostly, my instinct is just to answer it honestly as a survey, but..." 

She shrugs her shoulders. 

Hammond sighs.

"Arrow's impossibility theorem strikes again," he laments. "To answer your question — I'm not sure exactly how many people are going to voice their opinion in time. You'd be amazed how many people aren't willing to talk to a canvasser. Or a walrus. You're actually the first person I've gotten substantial answers out of."

He sets the clipboard down again and leans forward.

"As for how the surveys are being aggregated ... look, technically I'm not even an emissary of the Will of Magic. Technically I'm a subcontractor, because the real emissaries ... Well let's just say that the way people react to walruses is a step up. But my bosses, they have some kind of method which I don't understand, but which they say produces an unbiased, unweighted aggregate of all the responses. It's not a simple vote-counting scheme because you don't have to just give me yes-or-no answers, but I'm pretty sure your incentive is to answer honestly."

He thinks for a moment.

"... I can also put down conditional preferences, if that helps? Like 'Eternal bliss for everyone, if possible, but if not I still want X, Y, and Z'."

She nods. 

"That's a bit of a relief. And I can do conditions..." 

She rolls her head back in thought and hums. 

"Oh. I suppose there's another question there - how much can the - matured will of magic act on consequences rather than rules? I feel like the difference is kind of academic if the magic system is sufficiently omniscient, yeah? Certainly, I've read a bunch of stories with magic systems with comprehensive systems of destinies that support that kind of thing, but I shouldn't assume this 'Will of Magic' can, nesscarily?" 

"That's one of the questions I'm supposed to get to in a bit, actually! The ultimate form that magic takes is bound by rules, but those rules can definitely be destiny-based, like 'everyone gets a happy ending', and the universe will be the kind of place where that is always true. But in order to do that in a self-consistent way, you have to give up on having universal, impersonal physical laws. Or you have to introduce a very smart entity tied into the magic system who can make it work," Hammond explains. "So how exactly it will work is up to you — and the other respondents. What do you think?"

Then he makes a face of realization and lightly bops himself with a flipper.

"Unless you meant on a meta level? Like, how much control the Will of Magic has over the consequences of what it will become? Because I think there's a pamphlet about that ..."

He starts flipping through the papers on his clipboard.

"It's generally good to know on all levels, I've found." 

She hum hum hums. 

"Everyone getting a happy ending is a good start - preferably within a decade or two, at least, though I'm not very firmly stuck on any particular time horizon, there, since natural and good quality ways to solve people's problems can be hard to find. There's a lot of weird edge cases - I don't think you mean some sort of direct happiness injection thing, but even beyond that, people are just generally weird... Probably you want to make it some sort of function weighing emotional fulfillment and a slate of happiness sub-sensations and satisfaction and reflectively endorsed appreciation of things. Personally, I lean pretty heavily to that last factor? But really, there's a pretty wide slate of options that I think would be very good, as long as things end up reasonably ungoodharted, and going in that direction should help along with that besides." 

"I don't mind having non-universally impersonal physical laws? Though honestly, there's nothing wrong either with having entities associated with the power system that help out, too. Having a bunch of say, cute anime girls - and boys too, probably - with a connection to the power system pop into existence with a desire, capacity and great personal joy in helping people get happy endings is maybe a good start for a first pass..."

"Oh and... Do tell if there's any obvious hypotheticals to consider I'm missing or you'd like me to fetch you anything while we talk - I can get you some water, and I think I have some fish in the fridge somewhere... There's really just so much to consider!"

Her hands flap excitedly, before she bounces up in her seat to sit on them a little.  

"Well, I'm not sure how well I can come up with hypotheticals. But it's part of a good canvasser's job to ask follow-up questions!" he agrees. "Let me just note down the things you said about happy endings ..."

"It's good to know you're not against having the magic system create helper entities. When you say 'anime', are you thinking in terms of visual style, being familiar-but-obviously-magical, in terms of personality, or ...?"

"Really, it's all of the above? Or arguably, it's more about them being cute and aesthetically appealing than being nesscarily particularly 'anime'. That being said, I am really really fond of magical girls and magical girlfriends. That sort of... exaggerated stylishness is just really fun and exciting for me." 

He nods seriously.

"Okay. So, to summarize: you want a magic system that guarantees happy endings for people — I've got the details on that — and you don't mind if that happens via non-universal or non-impartial physics, or via creating new entities associated with the magic system. But if there are entities like that, you want them to be cute, aesthetically appealing people, and you're particularly fond of magical girls and girlfriends."

He flips a few pages to another section of questions.

"What are your thoughts on mind control? Not, uh, for or against, but more along the lines of what counts? How aesthetically appealing, persuasive, etc., should the hypothetical magical girlfriends be? What level of engineered coincidences and so on are acceptable in bringing about a person's destiny?"

She blushes softly. 

"Honestly I'm pretty permissive? I kink a lot on people being extraordinarily hot, honestly. There should probably be some cap, at least in public without a bunch of informed consent in limits, but you can be solidly superhuman in beauty and that's okay by me, especially if they can upgrade pre-existing people to their level. As for the persuasiveness... Personal instinct is to put them at around 90th, 95th percentile of the human distribution? Honestly it's scary enough what people can do there already. Still, there's maybe a bit of room for slight superhumanity if you can confine it relatively narrowly towards formal rhetoric, logic and empathy, especially if there's a sort of... defense bias in social combat with them? If we're talking a bit more literally about what counts... I'm fine with anything physically possible, and anything that's just sort of... 'input' to the mind, so long as it's not lying to you?" 

"As for luck... I think that it's okay to do things that are one in a hundred nine times out of ten, at least? Really, the biggest thing is that it shouldn't... feel too coercive, and it shouldn't feel like the sort of thing that is so implausible it couldn't happen in a normal life? It's definitely okay for people to be 'lucky', but the situations where it's an absurd or comical barrage should be tasteful and relatively few and far between - the sort of thing that you hear about happening once or twice in your extended social circle, but not the sort of thing that a person would expect to happen to them in the next few decades."