Find 'magic'? Hm, engineering could be an Extraordinary ability, rather than Supernatural or Spell-Like...

"I am worried that, as the news spreads, criminals might deliberately confuse their thoughts or deceive themselves. I said, in my explanations today, that it's almost impossible to lie to me in their thoughts, and that's true today, but it might not always be true.

I don't want that to happen, and if you continue to employ me I expect you don't want that either. I would be interested in collaborating to prevent it.

I have a question about what I'm allowed to do. According to the letter of our deal, I have a lot of discretion over the order I ask questions in, how exactly I phrase them, and how I approach a thought from many angles. Am I allowed to arrange those subtleties as I wish, for example to influence the story that gets told about a suspect, and possibly thus their sentencing? To be precise, if I did that, would the average officer in your position feel that I was showing myself to be hard to negotiate with, in a way that made them regret how they had dealt with me earlier?

A request: I would like to be partially released from my oath, so that I can offer jobs to suspects who impress me. Specifically, I would like to divulge one small fact, merely that I was impressed, with no other details, in two ways: directly to the candidates themselves, and to observers by my actions in approaching and possibly employing the candidates. If you're worried about their association with me implying criminality, I can say that I expect to hire people other ways too, but I have no specific plans at the moment.

I'm willing to pay two shillings per candidate for this privilege."

"-Allow me a moment to think, please."

"You are correct that the letter of our deal is a bit sparse. That is probably a mistake, and probably which I made because I am in a hurry. Interrogators are expected not to manipulate the story for their own benefit, and to try not to manipulate it much at all. I did intend and still do intend to use your interviews as information, not evidence, of course, but- Well, we are bad at keeping these things straight. We try to avoid conflicts of interest for this reason. And you come from a different cultural context, all the unstated assumptions may need to become stated... To answer your actual question, yes, an average officer in my position would feel you were twisting the negotiation if you deliberately arranged the interview questions for a particular outcome. It would make them more hesitant but not impossible to deal with you in future. It looks to me from the transcripts like you did not do that. I appreciate the discretion, if so, and it looks like you're acting in good faith."

"And to act in good faith myself, I have noticed a mistake in my confidentiality clause. It is intended to protect the interviewees from harm by disclosure, not intended to protect the police. So, you may ask each interviewee for permission to discuss their interview in the same manner you would do so for me, so long as you do not coerce, threaten, misrepresent the gain they would get from this, so on and so forth- Asking them in 'good faith' as it were. 'Good faith' meaning to me that you treat the opposing party in a negotiation fairly for a value of fairly that I am finding it a bit difficult to put into coherent form. Essentially, would they regret trying to negotiate at all, I suppose?"

"Understood. I was only tempted to manipulate one interview today, but to be clear, in case it happens more often in the future: when I have to carefully act as if my desires are different from what they actually are, my thinking is slower and slightly worse. The same is true when I have relevant knowledge that I can't use - and that might be a problem if we continue to work together and I interrogate people who have connections to prior suspects. I'm trying not to remember the details of interviews, but I do not have the ability to erase my own memory at will."

(Cassisian angels have that ability.)

"I like that phrasing, of not giving the other party reason to regret negotiating. To clarify further, my normal standard is to avoid causing regret to the actual person I'm dealing with. For the pair of us here, I instead use the average officer in your position, because I'm really dealing with your organization, not you personally. It's not my job, however, to imagine what someone might theoretically think if they were much more intelligent and wise; I only predict them as they are. Is that an acceptable standard of 'good faith' for dealing with people I have interviewed, according to our agreement?

I think I still need your permission to approach former interviewees at all, before I can even ask their permission to continue contact. Unless I adopt the policy of asking everyone I meet, which would be inconvenient."

"Yes, that's an acceptable standard of 'good faith'. And yes, you may approach interviewees if you do it in good faith... Though I will note aloud that good faith does not always lead to good results. And that doing so in public can attract unwanted attention to them. Hrm. For your interviews tomorrow, do you have any objection to beginning work at two o'clock, or to specifically ordered courses of questioning? Also, I would like to politely request that you not stray too far tonight. Until you have more context and the locals are more used to you perhaps. While I am not attempting to control your movements, I... Anticipate disturbances when you interact with the public. Finally, I've been told that you're offering services as an 'organizational consultant', and a teacher, I'd like to hear a bit more about that."

"I'm not sure what you mean by saying that good faith doesn't always lead to good results - I'm aware that they might refuse to talk with me, or attack me, etc? I'm also not sure what you intend by saying that approaching them in public might attract unwanted attention. As I said earlier, our agreement restricted my interaction with them because that leaks the information that I might have met them in an interrogation. I thought you just released me from that, but are you saying that you interpret our deal to mean that I must approach them discretely?

If you, for personal reasons, are simply stating information that I might find useful, then I will respond by saying that I already know (so that you are better calibrated to what I do and don't know) and that I do not want my employees to have a reputation of criminality (so that you know my values better, for future negotiations).

I have no objection to beginning work at two o'clock. I do not object to the general idea of preset courses of questioning, but if standardized questions are easier to befuddle and more people damage their minds trying to lie to me, I dislike that outcome.

What do you mean by making a 'polite request'? I intend to quietly sit in a public place tonight, visit the chemist and some other shops tomorrow morning, and wander further tomorrow night. Is that acceptable to you?

I am open to mutually-beneficial trades. I'm aware that trading parties who understand each other's values and have confidence in each other's Lawfulness sometimes take unilateral action in expectation of retroactively negotiating a deal. I do not, however, give or receive favors, in the 'Good' sense. I sometimes do altruistic things because they please me, and likewise if someone's whim benefits me I won't turn it down, but I don't see that as any sort of relationship.

I can somewhat help a person learn almost anything, by reading their mind, identifying confusions, and directing their attention. I can, much more effectively, help a person learn something I know myself: reading, cooking, sewing, fighting, my religion, teaching, contract law as practiced where I'm from, and another kind of law that's possibly heretical to mention and possibly irrelevant. I'm very good at helping people improve their own minds, which works best if I can provide positive and negative reinforcement.

My organizational skills are very informed by my heretical religion... do you want to hear more?"

"...Hold on, there are two conversational tracks here, things might be- Ugh."

"You are very visibly not normal. You approaching people at all in public means that those people will be the subject of gossip and speculation, and some of those people might disprefer that. My release to approach your interviewees regarding disclosing contents of the interview in good faith was meant as 'if you predict they won't regret it'. If you say to someone in a crowded bar 'I want to talk to you about your interview at the police station, is that alright?', this makes everyone know that they were part of an investigation and think they are a criminal, which would probably make them regret it. If you approach someone who has not much reason to be interacting with you at all, and it is known that you are doing police interviews, the same thing might happen by assumption. Not that you can control others' assumptions, but..."

He rubs his temples. "I'm saying that without social context you don't necessarily have a good model of what will cause unexpected harms, I suppose, and should keep that in mind as part of not giving people cause to regret asking them to talk about the interview. If you don't need to sleep, spending the night in a park or something should not lead you too far astray. And yes, a 'polite request' was essentially me asking for a small favor. I would provide you a room to stay for free on the condition that you actually use it overnight, because this reduces the chance of idiots causing trouble. To make it an actual deal, instead of a favor."

"I see. I'm used to thinking of 'good faith' as only applying to the actual negotiation. I would not pretend to parley with someone to distract them from an attack, say, but I don't have rules forbidding genuine attempts to negotiate. In fact, I consider deliberately giving the wrong impression to bystanders to be lying.

At least in my normal context. If, here, it's widely understood that Lawful people try to keep knowledge of their relationships from causing issues for each other and that this is not lying, then it is actually not lying. Is that in fact true? When I said that I can use my more-expensive form of mind-reading 'a few times a day' rather than stating an exact number of times or a description of my constraints, I expected that you'd know that I might be deliberately vague about my capabilities, and would not consider my statement deceptive. Is that correct?

I do not particularly need a room at the moment, but I would like to avoid trouble, and I might have more use of a room in the future. What curfew would you want me to obey? Can I bring other people into my room? Are there any other restrictions?"

"I think we are talking past each other. I also think you are overestimating the average - lawfulness - of the average person on the street, and- Rather than trying to debate the nature of 'in good faith' we should do something less frustrating and make a different rule that serves to not confuse you and satisfy my moral impulse.

I don't think it is unfair to hide the exact details of your capabilities. I don't consider it lying. I don't understand your question about relationships and lying.

I would be renting an inn room in your name and would like you to stay there from midnight to six for each day I do so. Absent emergencies or other exceptional situations. Yes, if you're not kidnapping or coercing them, and you can't prevent them from leaving. I would call the other restrictions - usual inn courtesies, but I'm not sure you know what those are, so. No excessive noise, you may be charged cleaning and repair fee if you go beyond 'normal use', by breaking the furniture, coal for the hearth is included and soot from a fire and rumpled sheets on the bed counts as normal use, laundry and breakfast and hot baths and anything of that sort are all extra charges from the room itself..."

"I care about following the highest standard I can imagine, as adjusted for the norms of the most Lawful people here. The opinion of the average person on the street is maybe informative about local norms, but I'm not going to lower my standard to theirs. Also, we can't just make up a different rule; the rule is already fixed as the result of our hypothetical negotiations as they would have happened earlier today if we had had plenty of time to think and communicated perfectly with each other.

My question was about a generalization of this situation. Maybe, instead, I'll ask about some examples: what are the rules for regular police officers approaching people they previously met while on duty? If you have specializations, what about a police officer who is known for dealing with, say, prostitutes? A doctor who specializes in a disease of notorious origin?"

She considers asking if she can keep people from leaving her room if they consent beforehand, but without truth spells, that consent would be pretty hard to verify.

"I accept that deal for a room."

"I think it would not make sense to have principled rules about those example situations separate from the generalized rules about slander, harassment, unnerving or frightening people, and general good conduct of an officer. Doctors swear a hippocratic oath and are generally held to high standards. We don't in fact have such specific rules. A police officer known for dealing with prostitutes would have to be more careful about accidentally slandering or harassing women, but there would not be a separate rule about it. That is what I am trying to- gesture at. There is no hard rule, just context. I'll have a runner pre-pay the room each day, do let me know if you wish to cancel the deal. The inn is the Roadster's Rest, just one block north of here."

"My intent is to approach someone and say 'I would like to talk to you, in my personal capacity, not as a contractor for the Bristol police. If this isn't a good time, you can probably find me at the police station, the Roadster's Rest inn, or somewhere else announced on my advertisements' and then I'll wait a minute for them to respond, and then leave. I might try again later if I have a new, very different proposition for them, or if I have good reason to think they might be more interested, and they haven't clearly said not to contact them again. I think that follows your laws about slander and harassment. Does it satisfy your personal values?

To be clear, I am still trying to approximate how our earlier negotiation might have gone, not making up something new."

"...I think this is acceptable because there are time and mental fatigue costs trying to arrive at a more perfect approximation, which I don't consider likely to be worth it on this specific point.

I understand your goals to be approximately - establishing a reputation, accumulating resources, maintaining your lawfulness, maintaining your faith. My goals in addition to personal reputation and resources are approximately preserving the life, happiness, and fulfillment of the people of Bristol, as Her Majesty has charged me. I think we may well have more to talk about, much more, but I am tired and busy."

"Understood. 

My goals are approximately that, yes, and also broadly influencing this society to be more vain, hierarchical, and rulebound."

Before, her altruism mostly took the form of pushing mortals towards shapes that would be happier once Marra perfected them - "And I might develop other goals as I learn about this world and reflect.

May I legally try to talk to people currently held here by the police?"

"You may like anyone else. We have procedures for visiting hours, you should go to the front desk to arrange this."

McAllen is rubbing his temples again.

"Understood."

She goes to the front desk. "I would like to visit Waltana Hampson."

"-Visiting hours end at eight o'clock. Name and reason for visit? We'll ask her if she wants to be visited, if she does, you'll be shown to a visiting room and so will she. There will be a guard outside the room to prevent escape attempts. You may not bring contraband into the visiting room, that includes tools, alcohol and other drugs, mostly. Due to the need for a guard visits are restricted to an hour a day."

"Cantor Kireh Sarl. No comment on the reason."

"Thank you, please wait for a response. Should be just a few minutes."

The front desk officer walks a note into the back office.

The eventual response is- "Young miss Hampson will see you if you promise, er, not to read her mind, and says she doesn't promise to talk, just listen."

"I only read the minds of people who consent or attack, or I have the right to, which I currently don't for anyone on this planet. I additionally promise not to read her mind today for any reason."

She is led to the visiting room after promising she doesn't have anything from this list of contraband and letting them check her handbag (or leave it at the front desk). The bag and case and writs and writing materials don't count. The officers still seem to be acting a bit oddly towards her, but it's at least less tense and ready for a fight by now.

The fourteen year old is sitting in a chair in the visiting room, which appears to just be an interview room being used for a different purpose, arms crossed and scowling. She just nods at Kireh.

"I would like to talk to you, in my personal capacity, not as a contractor for the Bristol police. If this isn't a good time, you can probably find me at the police station, the Roadster's Rest inn, or somewhere else announced on my advertisements."

"...Not with the police. Okay, go ahead and talk."

"I was impressed by your ambition, intelligence, and engineering talent. I'm not sure how engineering training works here exactly, but I would like to hire you to study and consult for me, or to sponsor your education, or whatever.

As an example of one thing I want to consult on: I hope to build a shelter. I am immune to cold, and I hope that the maintenance of the machines can be done cheaper than usual, if I do it, rather than fragile commoners.

If I continue to work with the police, I estimate that I can pay you, including costs for education, a total of six shillings per week, and you may use my room at the Roadster's Rest to stay and/or store your possessions."

"...Uh-huh. There's a library. One of the few nice things about this city. I read a lot of books before mum passed. These things just make sense to me, it feels like people are blind when I explain it, but I don't have an actual education, I don't know the things engineers are supposed to know, so they dismiss me as a fake or a dabbler.

And I don't know what you are. I don't know what you can do. I don't know how you think. I have no reason to trust you. Six shillings plus room is not that much more than what I make washing clothes. As for a shelter... I'd need to see some of the I.E.C. plans to even have an idea where to start... You'd need a steady supply of fuel, that's why they're - I read they're building the Generators on top of coal seams-"

That's like a wizard school turning down a sorcerer because they're clearly just pretending to be a wizard.

"What angels are to the endorsed god here, I am to my god. I can read thoughts and feelings, control feelings a bit, defend myself, see in the dark, and tolerate cold and electricity without harm. I have various skills, most importantly teaching, especially teaching how to think clearly and efficiently. Compared to the average mortal, my thoughts are more structured and less susceptible to emotional distortion, but I do have emotions.

I'll say that you can trust me to keep my word, straightforwardly, trying not to give you cause to regret dealing with me. Of course, just saying that isn't convincing. I don't think anyone here has had the opportunity to observe me keeping my word in a high-stakes situation when I would benefit from breaking it, though.

If you want to trust me to have your best interests at heart... that mostly doesn't exist. People who say it does are usually fooling themselves and sometimes outright lying.

In a few days I expect to know more about my budget. Can I contact you with a better offer, and how should I do that? If your education requires books or tools that I can buy and loan to you, I might be willing to do that in addition to what I already said.

In any case, I would pay you 10 pence to answer my questions about engineering for the rest of the hour we're allowed to talk."