Non-lawbreaking curses

[Belial666]

Here are some curse examples that do not incur Lawbreaker. This does not mean they are not crippling or nasty - any one of them can ruin someone, get someone institutionalized, neutralize a target or even have them killed. The curses give you enormous power on the mortal world, in ways nobody in the mortal world can counter, without breaking the Laws of Magic. In fact, they work a lot better in taking power in the mortal world that many lawbreaking spells because they are directed against what gives powerin the mortal world (unlike most magic)  : money, social power, political power, credibility, family and connection.


Mask of Death [Disruption/Veil or Necromancy 30 shifts]
Effect: you make the target appear to be dead, even though they are not, long enough for their next of kin to make funeral arrangements. The magic does not kill the target; it only deceives their family into having them buried alive or cremated through their own actions. Bonus points for the victim being alive to hear his own funeral arrangements
Mechanics: physical block vs endurance 14 shifts to keep the target paralyzed, veil 12 shifts to make him appear dead for most examinations. 4 shifts to increase duration to a week.

Eldritch Plague [Disruption 30 shifts]
Effect: you magically inflict the symptoms of some crippling disease upon the target. The magic keeps him immobile, not some real disease or damage to his body; human medicine would be unable to cure the victim. In fact, finding what exactly is wrong with the target beyond their apparent symptoms is quite hard.
Mechanics: physical block vs endurance 12 shifts to keep the target largely crippled, veil 6 shifts to make him appear to have some incurable disease, 12 shifts to make the curse last one mortal lifetime.

Illusory Madness [Veils 26 shifts]
Effect: you create illusions upon the target's senses. This can be as simple as sensory deprivation but hearing voices or unearthly visions are much more fun. The spell does not affect the target's mind - it merely creates an illusion for him to see; targets of "Illusory Madness" are often institutionalized after rationally insisting that they keep hearing/seeing said illusion (hence the spell name) but even if they aren't, and even if they realise the visions are not real, the distortion to their senses is enough to keep them from functioning.
Mechanics: Veil 14 shifts, 12 shifts to make the curse last one mortal lifetime.

Cloak of Obscurity [Veils 26 shifts]
Effect: the target becomes a nobody, utterly ignored by family, friends, allies and people in general. They could still function in life but they usually become angry loners as their any attempt to be socially active or draw anyone's attention is utterly ignored. They don't become invisible but, socially speaking, they might as well have been.
Mechanics: veil/block 14 shifts vs social interaction, 12 shifts to make the curse last one mortal lifetime.

Curse of Poverty [Disruption 26 shifts]
Effect: much like an entropy curse, this spell affects the target's luck. Unlike an entropy curse, the extremely bad luck is focused on one single aspect of life and is long-lasting; money. The target goes to withdraw money from an ATM? It happens to not function as long as they're trying to use it. The target wants to make a lucrative business deal? Someone else undercuts him, the offer happens to no longer be available or for some reason the deal falls through. The target has an intermediary/accountant handle his money? The accountant happens to be a total incompetent that causes him loss, a cheat and thief that embezzles until there os nothing left or outright moves the accounts and vanishes or an IRS plant looking for (or even arranging for) financial dirt. The target personally buys something with actual money? He somehow ends up carrying a couple fake bank notes that are recognized by the shop that then denies him service, or the shopkeeper mistakenly thinks his money/credit is no good or he gets mugged on the street. In effect, the target of the Curse of Poverty may be an average man or the richest man alive but it does not matter; a ridiculously improbable but technically possible reason always crops up for him being unable to actually use his wealth.
Mechanics: block 14 shifts vs resources, 12 shifts to make the curse last one mortal lifetime.

[Papa Gruff]

First of all: all the curses are very very nice. I like them a lot and may end up using them on occasion.

But please tell us why you can categorically state that some of these do not merit the lawbreaker stunt. From my perspective on the rules the lawbreaker comes from narrative context. That said, if you using Mask of Death with the intent that somebody else is going to bury the victim alive then you'll get the lawbreaker. You get it because you intended your victim to die.

Most of your creations use the block mechanic to vail something from the perception of the victim or from somebody else. Please clarify: how is creating illusions of maddening images through a vail different from creating them directly in the mind of the victim (Illusory Madness)? It even lasts for a lifetime! To me that is messing with someones mind, just in a slightly less intrusive way. His thoughts will definitely get altered by this over time. The intention is to make someone insane. That's lawbreaking.

Similarly: how is creating the illusion of obscurity upon a victim that lasts a lifetime not changing him along the lines of the second law (Cloak of Obscurity)? In my opinion this can be vied as transforming somebody into something else.

Most of the curses may or may not avoid the caster from prosecution by the White Council, based on technicalities. At least in the games I run there would be a lengthy debate about some of them being against the laws. But that's just my opinion...

... the shift costs of the spells make them impracticable for PC anyhow. Yet again they are very nice as plot devices.

[Belial666]

The Laws of Magic are both laws of the White Council and universal principles of magic. These curses might have the Wardens accuse you (and even convict you) of being a Lawbreaker - depending on the length of the stick up their collective rears - but they don't violate the underlying universal principles;

Mask of Death does not kill with magic. Its whole point is to deceive somebody else into killing the target for you. Yes, the results of the spell are indirectly lethal but if somebody else does not choose to have the target buried, cremated, put up for an autopsy or other lethal event, the target does not die. Consider that the Wardens use magic to restrain warlocks and then kill them with a sword and still don't get Lawbreaker because the magic did not kill the guy - a separate choice to remove his head from his shoulders did.
Illusory Madness does not rob someone of free will - they can act as they please - and neither does it invade their minds. It creates an illusion on their senses that could be done with photomancy or biomancy, not mind magic. That the target might eventually go insane is immaterial; the Laws say nothing about causing insanity or emotional pain - they deal with invading a mind with magic. If, for example, a warlock used lightning spells to cause excruciating physical torture on a victim until said victim went irrevocably insane, there would be no 4th law violation because there would be no mind magic used.
Cloak of Obscurity is not in any way transformation magic. In fact, it does not affect the target - it affects the senses of anyone trying to perceive the target, similarly to making someone invisible.

So all in all, the White Council might still prosecute the caster as a Lawbreaker, even convict them. But in the sense of being twisted by black magic (i.e. taking the Lawbreaker power), the caster has nothing to fear.



However, keep in mind the greatest advantage those kind of curses offer; Mask of Death, Illusory Madness and Cloak of Obscurity are veiled to appear as natural events or have the lack of noticeability as their whole point. While a wizard will immediately investigate someone that had their hearts ripped off their chests, while would they investigate an apparent heart attack or an apparent kitchen accident? While they'd investigate the nauseating presence of mind magic, would they even notice an illusion whose entire point is to keep something unnoticed? Flavor-wise, the Council would have no reason to investigate. Mechanics-wise a wizard would fail their perception rolls vs a 14-shift veil just like everyone else unless they intentionally opened The Sight.


BTW, the best thing to kill someone with magic is not to rip off their hearts. It is to take a .50 cal bullet and have the spell guide it to the target and slam it at 5-6 times the speed of sound. Magic Immunity doesn't work against that and neither do magic circles. And the death looks like a sniper kill so the White Council won't suspect black magic at all.

[Papa Gruff]

Once again I come to the conclusion that your interpretation of the rules and the general institution of magic in the dresden files universe is incompatible with mine. I'm not looking for yet an other discussion. All I want to say is that you only can state that these curses won't break the laws of magic in games you run. You can't state categorically that these curses don't break the laws, because I bet you dollars for donuts that they will do so at many many gaming tables.

As you said yourself the lawbreaker stunt is linked to the underlining principles of magic. One of these is: don't use your magic to kill. How the killing is done is secondary. That's why the wardens use their swords to execute lawbreakers and not their magic. Holding someone with magic is not killing someone with magic and so on... The wardens are not INTENDING to kill with their magic. That said if you use your curs in a Romeo and Juliet way to just make it look like someone's dead ... no lawbreaker there, you can make sure they wake up before they are cremated or burried alive.

An other one is: don't use your magic to mess with someones mind. Making them think they are insane by the mans of illusions is just that. You violate the mind of an other. It doesn't necessarily have to be directly messing around with someones thoughts. I mean think about it! The third law is partly in place to shield people against the aftereffects of mind magic (insanity, etc.). You are just doing it in a more complex and innovative way with some of your curses.

At least that's how I see it...

[Haru]

I have to agree with Papa Gruff, if the intention of a spell is to get someone killed, it is violating the law, so using Mask of Death to get someone killed would, for me, be a violation of the 1. law. If you wanted to use the exact same spell to have everyone think the person is dead, but not to kill him, that would be fine though. Intention is a very important factor in these spells, I think.

The same goes for Illusory Madness, it is a magical attack on their mind, it is bound to leave a stain on yourself.

The other three spells, though they are pretty nasty as well, are ok, I think. Only Eldritch Plague might be dark dark grey, and may have the wardens chase you, but spirit wise, I don't think it would get you any lawbreaking. It might be a first step to other things though.

One thing, that I ask myself: what about someone afflicted by the curse taking a shower? Would that work to get the curse off? It did the trick for Thomas in Backup, so it might work here. Maybe not in one shower, but daily for a while should wash away most of the magic. And as most people shower regularly, would long term curses like that even make sense? Except for the Mask of Death, of course, dead people don't shower.

[ways and means]

The difference between Ilusory Madness and a fourth law violation is that ilusory madness is not a direct attack upon the mind it is a direct attack upon the senses. Unlike a fourth law violation a person is not being enthralled, they have the freedom not to go insane, they have the freedom not believe the ilusions and to do what ever they want to do regardless of what they see. It is thier choice to believe the illusions and to make your curse thier reality.

[Belial666]

Water is a threshold, mostly. It keeps away random energies and it makes it a bit more difficult to gather energy for a spell. On the other hand, Harry was chest-deep in lake Michigan, he was exhausted and the power of his average rote is 8 or 9 and his spells more than half-worked.  So water, even an entire ocean's worth of water, is at best a "great" threshold. It is not going to do much against a 26-shift permanent spell. And as soon as the shower stopped running, the spell would return to its original strength.

Now, what would that do to the strength of the spell? Say that said cursed person is put under continious running water of a threshold of "great". That's 4 shifts of power reduced. Assuming this power reduction while the spell is under the water comes off the spell's duration, the spell degrades from "mortal lifetime" to "one year". So, one year under running water will eventually short out the spell.

Now, if you take the victim to a major cathedral several centuries old, that is an important landmark of the city and has a true believer as a priest living there for many years (building threshold of Legendary) and you put the victim under running water as above, you weaken the curse by a honking 12 shifts. That reduces its duration from "mortal lifetime" to "one day"; twenty-four hours spent under running water in such a bastion of faith can erode the curse completely and dispel it.


In addition, if you put the cursed victim in a major bastion of faith (thus reducing the curse's effective power to 18) while you are invited in the curse and suffer no power reduction, you could attempt to dispel the curse while it is weakened, requiring only 18 shifts of power to do so instead of the normal 26. A wizard with power/control 9, burning his 4th mental slot, a mild and a moderate mental and tagging the aspects "absolutely focused" and "concentrated power", paying a fate point and taking some backlash,could dispel the curse outright with Evocation. Or he could do an 18-shift ritual. (if, for some reason, you don't want to wait for the curse to dissolve on its own)

[Papa Gruff]

The difference between Ilusory Madness and a fourth law violation is that ilusory madness is not a direct attack upon the mind it is a direct attack upon the senses. Unlike a fourth law violation a person is not being enthralled, they have the freedom not to go insane, they have the freedom not believe the ilusions and to do what ever they want to do regardless of what they see. It is thier choice to believe the illusions and to make your curse thier reality.

In theory you may be right. Yet the curses are designed in a way to bypass the laws of magic on the basis of the rules that the system provides us with. See, the Illusory Madness curs is designed at a strength (14), that makes it virtually impossible for the victim to free itself from the simulated horrors. It's like watching a nightmarish horror movie 24/7. I'd totally consider that an attack on someones sanity and mind.

What I mean to say is. There might be a difference where the rules are concerned, but in terms of narration the outcome is pretty much identical and created under identical intentions.

[Taran]

In theory you may be right. Yet the curses are designed in a way to bypass the laws of magic on the basis of the rules that the system provides us with. See, the Illusory Madness curs is designed at a strength (14), that makes it virtually impossible for the victim to free itself from the simulated horrors. It's like watching a nightmarish horror movie 24/7. I'd totally consider that an attack on someones sanity and mind.

Like Clockwork Orange, only with spells.

[evileeyore]

One thing, that I ask myself: what about someone afflicted by the curse taking a shower? Would that work to get the curse off? It did the trick for Thomas in Backup, so it might work here. Maybe not in one shower, but daily for a while should wash away most of the magic. And as most people shower regularly, would long term curses like that even make sense? Except for the Mask of Death, of course, dead people don't shower.

Yes, eventually.  Like waaay eventually.  And it might take more than just a daily shower or two.  A religious man would be blessed by his religion's practice, many swim in runnign water, many cross powerful boundaries, crossing the globe back and forth, some could have life altering events (accidents, etc) that change the very nature of whom they are.

Unless the Curse Worker keeps adding power to the curse over time, which is what I'd do.  While "12 shifts can make a spell last a mortal lifetime" a lot of things can happen during that lifetime to weaken and wear at the curse.

But then I'm agaisnt the "can make a spell last a lifetime" type magics, unless we're talking diety levels.

[Sanctaphrax]

The only spell here that is unambigously non-Lawbreaking is Curse Of Poverty (which is an awesome idea, by the way). The others are all judgement calls.

I question the validity of a permanent block against Endurance that does not involve transforming the body.

Also, the limits of veils are unclear. Some of these might go beyond them. For example, I'm not sure that veils can do an illusion that not everyone can see without a direct mental invasion of those affected.

Like I said, judgement calls.

[sinker]

Of note if you want to be technical there is no law against mind magic. The third law prevents you from looking around in there, and the fourth law says no compulsions. If you didn't look you could in theory drive a person insane without breaking a law, and mental illusions are also technically not black magic (no compulsion, just changing what the person sees or hears). Of course this is all by the letter of the law. How this works from a universal law standpoint may be different.

[MorkaisChosen]

Compulsion to "believe you see that thing," I'd say. The other interpretation smacks of shenanigans.

After all, compulsion to "fear that thing" counts too...

[sinker]

But in the end you aren't replacing their will with your own. You're causing an effect, but it's still up to them how they choose to deal with that effect. They could choose to ignore the visions. They could choose to find a person to get rid of them. They could choose to go nuts. It's all up to them. To compel is to force a specific action. The statement the book makes is "Here, enthralling is any effort made to change the natural inclinations, choices, and behaviors of another person." That's just not happening here. All of those are still intact and working. While there is a likely response of going nuts, they could do anything.

You can choose to interpret the laws however you want, however a strict literal interpretation means that you must either read someone's thoughts or force them to a specific action/response to break the laws.

[Papa Gruff]

But in the end you aren't replacing their will with your own. You're causing an effect, but it's still up to them how they choose to deal with that effect. They could choose to ignore the visions. They could choose to find a person to get rid of them. They could choose to go nuts. It's all up to them. To compel is to force a specific action. The statement the book makes is "Here, enthralling is any effort made to change the natural inclinations, choices, and behaviors of another person." That's just not happening here. All of those are still intact and working. While there is a likely response of going nuts, they could do anything.

At a spell strength of 14 this is just not the case. For most mortals there is just no choice of defending because they will never manage to generate the shifts to break the illusion. They are damned to watch and there is nothing they can do about it. How will they find a person to get rid of them? Who will listen to them? They will probably end up in a mental ward classified as schizophrenicly disordered or something, while the nightmare illusion torments them for the rest of their lifes probably driving them insane for real. In a way they are compelled to go insane on their own. Thats making an effort to change someone.

Generally you are right though. That's what I said all along. These might or might not be construed lawbreakers. The problem I had was, that Belial666 categorically stated that they weren't. In my games most of them would be. I think the statement was misleading.