Can a Glamour Torch shed real light?

[Ophidimancer]

In other words, if it was pitch black, could I use a Glamour to see?  Also, how much do you allow a Galmour to change the appearance of something?  Could I pluck a hair from my head and glamour it into a clone of me?

[wyvern]

I'd probably say yes, and no, respectively, but I'm sure others will have different opinions.

The first one is really just a GM judgment call; some will say no, it's not real; others, like me, will consider output of light to be part and parcel of the appearance of things and say yes.

I don't think there's any hard-and-fast limit on how much you can change the appearance of something; there will be judgment calls no matter what your rule is.  Personally, my rule of thumb for glamours would be that you can't make any change that would directly and automatically modify skill rolls - no making yourself look so huge that people aiming for your body just shoot over your head, for example (though a maneuver to use glamours and give yourself an aspect "Not as big as I look" would be fine).

[Walker_Blade]

Carrying a flashlight or a lighter does not cost any refresh.  Glamour costs -2.  I would definitely weigh in on the side of allowing a character with glamours to make a light source.

[Deadmanwalking]

I'm more-or-less with wyvern on this one.

Definite yes on the light, though.

[Ophidimancer]

Hmm ok, so can a seeming make sound?  Phantom music, bird calls to distract, that sort of thing?

I'm making a fox changeling, do you think I could assume fox form, but then cast a seeming of my man form over myself and talk to people as normal a la Wolf's Rain?

[wyvern]

Again, I'd say yes, it can make noise.  (Within reasonable limits - no blowing out someone's eardrums with a phantom air horn.  Though, hey, that'd make for a great variant on the Breath Weapon power...)
However, the examples you use - maybe not so much, since you need a connection to the thing you're glamouring.  On the other hand, if somebody is chasing you through a forest that either you literally own, or that you've actually prepared for the purpose with little trinkets owned by you up in every third tree or so?  Then you might be able to pull that off.

For the second one: I'd tend to rule no, as per my example in my original post.  On the other hand, as your character is an actual kitsune, not just a were-fox, I'd also tend to rule that 1) you can talk in your fox form anyway, and 2) you don't have quite as much of an issue with clothes when you shift - probably explicitly allowing any traditional japanese garb to shift with you.

[fabulator]

As far as Glamouring up some light to see by I'd leave it up to your GM. I can see the point of the poster arguing that a -2 refresh power should give you more benefit than a no refresh cost flashlight but also consider that magic in the Dresdenverse is still reliant on physics. If you've got no real photons to bounce off stuff, you aint seeing anything. Glamouring a clone of you out of a hair; maybe, but the roll should be really, really difficult and require a lot of shifts for duration and such-like. Seemings for phantom sound and all that are right on; I really don't see why you'd need a connection to what or where you're putting the seemings. Also putting a seeming of a man over your fox form is totally fine too.  I think in the end its going to come down to your GM and what he or she lets you get away with.

[wyvern]

I really don't see why you'd need a connection to what or where you're putting the seemings.

Answer: Because the power as written in the book says that you need such a connection.  Now, if you think that restriction ought to be waived for certain sorts of small illusions, then you can take that up with your gaming group - and who knows, they may be fine with it.  Personally, I wouldn't be - but that's because I feel that Glamours is a very strong power already, at least in the hands of a creative player.

Your final conclusion is dead right, though - the actual limits are whatever your GM (and fellow players) will let you do with it, which will almost certainly end up either more, less, or just differently restrictive than what I'd rule for games I run.

[luminos]

My interpretation:  No, a seeming of a flashlight cannot create light.  The way I see it, seemings make it look like something is there, without giving it any substance.  To get any mundane utility out of a seeming, it would need to be a true seeming.  So what if regular flashlights don't cost any refresh?  Just use a regular flashlight then. That's not what Glamours are for.  Glamours are there to trick people with convincing illusions.

[Ophidimancer]

Aww, no using Glamours for fox fire, witch lights, or will'o'wisps then Luminos?

[luminos]

Well, maybe, but it would have to be customized slightly to do so if my interpretation is correct.  If the only mundane utility given to seemings is some limited lighting, it probably wouldn't mess anything up too much.

[Lanir]

Evocation does both sound and light without any problem. But it's a more general tool. Glamours are a bit more specific. You could probably make a solid case for taking a lesser light source and try enhancing it with Glamours to appear as some other type of light however. The same holds true for sound. Either one is of course subject to your GM's approval, honestly I could see sensible arguments for going either way on those. For a more versatile power that you know will do this without any need for guesswork consider picking up (Un)Seelie Magic or Evocation depending on what flavor you're after.

[neko128]

If you rule that a seeming of a Flashlight cannot create real light, can it create illusory light?

At one point in the books,

(click to show/hide)

Harry has the demon in his head use her illusion powers to let him see where everything is/was while in a dark room

.  For immobile objects, and for objects that you can detect in other methods beyond the visual while not currently being able to see them, it works perfectly.  Outside of the nitty-gritty of actual physics, does it make a difference?

What exactly is the player trying to get out of a seeming of a Flashlight?  An illusion of light wouldn't trigger a photovoltaic cell, for example, which could be both good and bad; and wouldn't be visible to anyone who wasn't subject to the illusion.

There are advantages to a group of people, instead of using an actual light source, having one member who can use some form of non-visual perception (spell-based or otherwise) to "see" their surroundings and then project an illusion onto the group giving them the equivalent of sight.

[Ophidimancer]

I don't think Glamour illusions are mental hallucinations.  They may be ephemeral, but I think everyone sees them the same.

[Lanir]

I was thinking of the book example neko128 brought up as well. Basically I thought if you shut it down as a real light source you'd open it up to an "it's all in your head" interpretation, which would in turn lead someone who'd read the books to eventually try the mental shenanigans neko128 mentioned. I didn't think mental hoodoo was the right way to go and on top of that it could quickly get annoyingly complex to describe and keep everyone on the same page. I'd be willing to juggle that in small doses if it seemed like the right feel for the power but it just doesn't. That and I didn't relish having one of these conversations:

Glamour Boy: I use my Glamour to paint an illusion inside my head of what the room looked like before it got dark.
GM: Okay.
Player 2: Wait, let me get this straight... He just went nuts and decided he could see in the dark so now he can?
GM: Err... Sort of?
Player 2: I need to get me some mental problems like that.