Bad Luck Spells

[Lanodantheon]

Entropy Curses that kill someone outright break the 1st Law, no question there. But would lesser Bad Luck Curses break the 2nd Law?

The goal of a Bad Luck Spell would be to reduce the Quality of Life, making someone's life hell, not end it. Though that may end if it drives the subject to Suicide, though that's not the Spell's goal.

[Tbora]

No second law refers to physical transformations like turning someone into a pig or mouse.

[MijRai]

They would not break any Law unless they messed with a mind or caused a death. I am not sure if driving a person to suicide without using mind magic breaks a Law though. When in doubt, say it does and compell the shit out of it!

[Imp]

this is pretty much one of the many grey areas in the laws... think of it as "not illegal, but frowned on"

[admiralducksauce]

Based on some threads from here a while back, I like to make the distinction if a spell breaks the First Law if there is a choice made by free will between the spell and the death.  The "bad luck hex driving its victim to suicide" isn't lawbreaking IMO.  The victim CHOSE to off themselves.  They could've cowboyed the F up and gone gunning for whoever hexed them, or somehow learned to live with their condition, or gone to an expert to remove the curse, etc.

[Nyarlathotep5150]

    A target killing himself because of the effects of a bad luck curse isn't a breach of the first law. The magic didn't kill him, and he still had free will, so his actions are his responsibility alone.
    The real problem here is in the spell itself. You can create a spell to give someone bad luck, but from there out, you can't control how that badluck presents itself.
     You could level a minor Entropy curse with the intent of not killing the target, but when the bad luck aspect tags itself, it might still cause a dangerous effect. Or it might come at a time when the target is so distracted that it ends up killing him anyway. If that happens, then its a breach of the first law regardless of your intentions. 

[Belial666]

That is why you level a Bad Luck curse specifically to mess with certain actions of the victim, not to create general bad luck.

For example, a general bad luck curse might make a victim fail his alertness roll to notice a car while crossing the street or slip while trying to climb a flight of stairs. That might be bad. A bad luck curse making the victim unlucky in love, or unlucky with money, would only trigger the bad luck only on the victim's social or economic decisions - those things might ruin him but won't kill him.

[Vryce]

I think that most people take it from there own point of view.  You have to take it fromt he warden that is looking at what the person has done.  Morgan would her small bad luck CURSE and sword would start to swing.  Where Dresden would try to help and to understand that it always starts small, but it gets easier to do.

[Drashna]

Personally, I'd say it's still a violation. It's a curse, therefore transformation of the target. Even if it's temporary.  Not to mention, if the curse causes death, what's the difference between that, and blowing somebody off a ledge with magic?  There isn't any, especially in the eyes of the Wardens.  Not to mention, you're willing to curse somebody with bad luck, how long till you're willing to curse them with "deadly luck"?  Magic is an extension of what you believe. So if you believe it's okay to curse somebody, how long till you go black? Warlock is likely in your future. If not a sharp peice of metal.

[Nyarlathotep5150]

Personally, I'd say it's still a violation. It's a curse, therefore transformation of the target. Even if it's temporary.

  Absolutely incorrect. The books (both RPG and more importantly the novels) make it quite clear that the second law refers to physical transformation of another. It refers to this for the sole reason that to transform another destroys their mind, thus effectively killing him. The second law is only another way of breaking the first law.

   

A bad luck curse making the victim unlucky in love, or unlucky with money, would only trigger the bad luck only on the victim's social or economic decisions - those things might ruin him but won't kill him.

    Those will get around the lawbreaker power, and the Wardens, but they don't ensure that the victim walks away alive. His bad luck in love might still get him killed by a jealous husband. His bad luck in money might still get him killed by shady characters he failed to pay back.
    You can't really make a bad luck curse with the intent of keeping the target alive. So, its really not worth doing unless you don't really care what happens to him.

   

Not to mention, you're willing to curse somebody with bad luck, how long till you're willing to curse them with "deadly luck"?

    I really feel the rpg making a distinction between the two aspects is silly. It leads people to think that the "lesser" curse was less dangerous, when infact, in the novels both curses where flat out trying to kill the target (in prettymuch the same ways).

I think that most people take it from there own point of view.  You have to take it from the warden that is looking at what the person has done.  Morgan would her small bad luck CURSE and sword would start to swing.  Where Dresden would try to help and to understand that it always starts small, but it gets easier to do.

   This is also mostly false. There is a letter of the law, and you can hide behind technicalities. The books are very clear on that matter. The laws only apply if the caster is human, the target is human and the spell directly violates one of the laws.
   In addition to that, its completely non sequitor, since the price of breaking the laws has NOTHING to do with the wardens. Its about the taint of black magic on the soul.

[Belial666]

Those will get around the lawbreaker power, and the Wardens, but they don't ensure that the victim walks away alive. His bad luck in love might still get him killed by a jealous husband. His bad luck in money might still get him killed by shady characters he failed to pay back. You can't really make a bad luck curse with the intent of keeping the target alive. So, its really not worth doing unless you don't really care what happens to him.

Nope. In those cases he was killed by the choice of another being, not by the magic. Even if he committed suicide, it would still be his choice and not your spell.


Also, you CAN make a bad luck spell with the intent of keeping the target alive. Someone can be considered a lot luckier if he is hit by a car and dies than if he is hit by a car and then has to spend the next forty years as a quarduplegic, limbs wasting away, having to be moved around by others and having to sit in his own waste unless someone helps clean him. The horror of decades of that is worse than death for many people.

And it is still not a lawbreaker.

[sinker]

It's a curse, therefore transformation of the target.

When did we determine this? A bad luck curse would be changing the way the world around someone works, not what that person is. That's like saying a fire spell is a transformation because it transforms someone into a burned person.

[Nyarlathotep5150]

Nope. In those cases he was killed by the choice of another being, not by the magic. Even if he committed suicide, it would still be his choice and not your spell.


Also, you CAN make a bad luck spell with the intent of keeping the target alive. Someone can be considered a lot luckier if he is hit by a car and dies than if he is hit by a car and then has to spend the next forty years as a quarduplegic, limbs wasting away, having to be moved around by others and having to sit in his own waste unless someone helps clean him. The horror of decades of that is worse than death for many people.

And it is still not a lawbreaker.

   Thats the point I was making there. No, its not a "lawbreaker" offense (nor would it be if the target committed suicide). The point was that, if you cast a spell to give someone bad luck you have no real control over how that bad luck comes on. So the premise of casting a "lesser" curse, with the intent of not killing the target isn't even worthwhile, since he might still die.
   Your better off just not casting the spell at all, unless you really don't care if he lives.

[Drashna]

When did we determine this? A bad luck curse would be changing the way the world around someone works, not what that person is. That's like saying a fire spell is a transformation because it transforms someone into a burned person.

First paragraph of "transformation and disruption"

Thaumaturgy that fundamentally, lastingly changes the target—whether it’s the target’s body, mind, emotions, or even luck—falls into the category of transformation and disruption. Often, this is dark stuff—curses, mind control, destructive shapeshifting, and death magic.

Oh and "The Second Law: Never Transform Another."  While yes, literal interpretation means actual transformation.   

[sinker]

First paragraph of "transformation and disruption"

Oh and "The Second Law: Never Transform Another."  While yes, literal interpretation means actual transformation.   

I see. Still leaves room for a bad luck curse that doesn't transform another, as long as you change how the laws of physics work and then anchor that to them. That was the first thing that came to mind when someone said bad luck curse and it would have been how I would have tried it were I a wizard.