Author Topic: Non-lawbreaking curses  (Read 5246 times)

Offline Belial666

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2011, 10:10:27 AM »
I guess it depends on how you use them.

You could use Illusory Madness just for sensory deprivation or for very distracting but non-scary images. For example, having people and objects appear to be about a yard to the left in the target's sight or left to appear as right and so on. Or you could try it in reverse, no illusion to the target's senses but an illusion to make him appear mad to others. In any case, the goal of the curse is to have him institutionalized and destroy his credibility, not actually make him insane.

For Mask of Death, the goal is to deceive others into killing the target for you - sort of how that Stygian Witch made Thomas look like the bad guy in Harry's eyes so Harry would kill him. It only goes a bit further into deceiving people the target is already dead so they don't know they are killing him and the White Council's attention is not drawn. Consider this; if said Stygian had masked a normal human investigator into looking like a monster and Harry's attack had killed the man with magic, who would get Lawbraker 1st; the witch or Harry?

Offline Tsunami

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • Not delicate.
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2011, 10:25:14 AM »
Illusory Madness is on the edge of lawbreaking in any case.

There are as we know
(click to show/hide)
two ways to create illusions:
a) Create actual images for everyone to see without touching any minds.
b) Create the Images in the mind of the intended target, drawing upon their own imagination to make them seem real.

a) would be quite useless to drive someone mad. Because if other people can see what he sees, madness would be quite improbable.
So, the only way to create the Illusions necessary for this curse would be to employ method b which is stretching the law as it is.
Employing it with the express intention to drive someone mad would definitely break the laws.

Cloak of Obscurity
I don't see how you could block social interaction with anything but mind magic. Since people still need to be able to perceive the victim a physical veil won't work (the spell states they do not become invisible).
And to stop people from interacting with the victim at all times, despite of being able to see him, you'd need compulsions, which are definitely mental magic.


The others could technically be done without breaking laws, especially the last one.
But i think  the wardens would still come after you for the first, and maybe the second one.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2011, 06:38:38 PM »
Cloak of Obscurity
I don't see how you could block social interaction with anything but mind magic. Since people still need to be able to perceive the victim a physical veil won't work (the spell states they do not become invisible).
And to stop people from interacting with the victim at all times, despite of being able to see him, you'd need compulsions, which are definitely mental magic.

The only issue I have with this is that we've already talked about wards to subtly encourage mortals to avoid places and it seemed like nobody thought that was strictly against the laws (though it might be a grey area). This is the exact same thing only on a personal scale.

Offline Bruce Coulson

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2011, 06:50:58 PM »
Imho, the first curse definitely breaks the First Law.  Your intent is to kill the person.  The fact that you're being clever about it and getting someone else to do the final act is immaterial.  Intent is what matters.  (For the Wardens, the intent of their spell is to restrain someone.  There will be a trial; and although the outcome is usually death, it's not guarenteed.  Therefore, restraining someone for a trial is the intent; restrain someone so they can be tried.)

The other curses are nasty, would definitely rank the caster as someone to be watched carefully by the Wardens...but don't quite cross the line.  Driving someone insane is not a Lawbreaker; so even if that's the intent of your spell, it's not illegal (under the Laws).  It's not entering their mind; it's exposing their mind to something you believe they won't be able to handle.  A subtle difference, but probably just enough (again, imho).

The fact that an entropomancer is casting such magics means they very will may consider doing more.  Expect Wardens frequently, just looking for that one slip-up that pushes you over the line. 
You're the spirit of a nation, all right.  But it's NOT America.

Offline Tsunami

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • Not delicate.
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2011, 07:04:29 PM »
The only issue I have with this is that we've already talked about wards to subtly encourage mortals to avoid places and it seemed like nobody thought that was strictly against the laws (though it might be a grey area). This is the exact same thing only on a personal scale.
Actually, there is nothing subtle about it.
As i read the description of the curse, the victim can't meaningfully interact with people even when he exhibits extreme behavior.
If he runs around naked in the streets, people would still ignore him. That takes more than subtle suggestions to ignore the character, that takes heavy handed compulsions, and those definitely break the law.
Especially if you want the victim to be ignored by people who have close personal relationships to him.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2011, 07:17:46 PM »
I'm starting to think you're right, especially with friends and loved ones it would take a pretty heavy mental whammy to make them ignore the target, not to mention all the strife they'd go through dealing with that. So just switch it to a permanent veil. Being actually invisible would cause much the same effect, though it would have it's own advantages as well.

Offline devonapple

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • Parkour to YOU!
    • View Profile
    • LiveJournal Account
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2011, 08:02:04 PM »
I'm not sure that I want to set as precedent that a Somebody Else's Problem (SEP) field automatically = Lawbreaker, even though it is putting a big mental "Ignore Me" whammy on anyone seeing it.

I'm certainly amenable to letting intent dictate whether the same type of spell is Lawbreaker or not. Almost any spell description/special effect can be twisted to something Lawbreaking. A ward to make mortals ignore a house? Not Lawbreaker. A ward to make mortals ignore another mortal? Maybe - probably yes.

If we start assigning shifts as an indicator of what makes something Lawbreaker or not, we open up the can of worms about Weapon rating indicating how lethal something is.
"Like a voice, like a crack, like a whispering shriek
That echoes on like it’s carpet-bombing feverish white jungles of thought
That I’m positive are not even mine"

Blackout, The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets

Offline Tsunami

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • Not delicate.
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2011, 08:22:24 PM »
I'm not sure that I want to set as precedent that a Somebody Else's Problem (SEP) field automatically = Lawbreaker, even though it is putting a big mental "Ignore Me" whammy on anyone seeing it.

I'm certainly amenable to letting intent dictate whether the same type of spell is Lawbreaker or not. Almost any spell description/special effect can be twisted to something Lawbreaking. A ward to make mortals ignore a house? Not Lawbreaker. A ward to make mortals ignore another mortal? Maybe - probably yes.

If we start assigning shifts as an indicator of what makes something Lawbreaker or not, we open up the can of worms about Weapon rating indicating how lethal something is.

Mild SEP Fields, like Harry's suggestion veil on his Storage unit are totally acceptable. As long as people are not specifically looking for it, they won't stumble upon it.

The Level of whammy that is proposed here would be a whole different deal. It would make a Husband ignore his Wife or vice versa, a Mother ignore her Children. The Cop looking for the specific Storage Unit would walk right past it.

Suggestion vs. Compulsion

The First makes people who don't really care in the first place not care even if there is something a little fishy.
The Second one would make the nosy PI looking for the Target look somewhere else instead.
The First one is ok.
The Second breaks the Law.

The Shift value is more or less irrelevant.

Offline Becq

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2011, 09:01:51 PM »
I think that trying to come up with spells that accomplish the end result of a lawbreaking spell while technically avoiding breaking the letter of the Laws should be doomed to failure.  Consider:

Quote from: YS232
The Laws of Magic are clear, concise, and offer little in the way of “wiggle room”—at least in the views of some Wardens—but are very much written to communicate the spirit of the law, which is the mode in which they are enforced. (This stands in contrast to the other major body of supernatural legalese, the Unseelie Accords, where there is no spirit of the law—only the letter of it. See OW15.)

So to begin with, it isn't the letter of the Law that matters so much as the spirit of the Law.  And creating a spell that (for example) is specifically intended and designed to drive someone mad breaks the spirit of the Law no differently than a direct mental assault would.

Point number two:

Quote from: YS282
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.

Of all the methods available through thaumaturgy, these are the ones most prone to run afoul of the Laws of Magic (page 232). Regardless of what the spell changes, this is a violent act to the target: people and things are very good at being what they are, and this sort of magic forces them to be what they aren’t.

Notice that 'curses' are listed there in with the other 'dark stuff' that is 'most prone to run afoul of the Laws' because it 'forces people to be what they aren’t'.  Combine this with the 'spirit of the law' discussion above, then read through the list of curses again.

Note, by the way, that even in an extremely permission gaming group that allowed the Laws to be avoided on such technicalities, there's still a very real potential flaw in attempting to 'externalize' the spells to dance around the letter of the Laws.  The basic problem is that rather than casting a spell to cause a transformation, you are creating a long-lasting spell to continually create a variety of symptoms.  That means that in each case, the victim is going to have a long-lasting and active 30-shift magical effect surrounding him.

Now, most mundanes aren't going to manage add two and two and get "magic".  But there is going to be a lot of crippled ambulances involved, and I can't help but think that a 30-shift effect is more than enough to shut down an entire hospital, which is where the victims of the first two curses are going to be sent right away.  And anyone with the least bit of a supernatural clue is going to know what's going on once that happens.

Another thing to consider is that when dealing with medical symptoms: the doctors that deal with those patients are going to have a reasonably hagh Scholarship, and slso the Doctor stunt, which means that they will be able to throw out a Declaration or Maneuver or three to tag to get a reasonably high result on their diagnosis.  The 12-shifts of your "Mask" curse may be high enough to fool them, but I doubt that the 6-shifts of your "Plague" curse would be.  And would automated medical devices (assuming they didn't fail in a dramatic fashion) even be affected by the spells?


Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2011, 10:28:37 PM »
The issue that I have with that is that (at least with the first four) you aren't actually changing the person. You aren't making them something that they aren't, you're making them appear to be something that they aren't. Their natural inclinations, and physical/mental/emotional states are fundamentally unchanged. Their choices are still their own, albeit limited by their circumstances, and they still work in exactly the same way. Saying that these things are changing people in a fundamental manner is like saying that burning, bruising or moving someone is changing them.

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2011, 06:13:14 AM »
Re: Mask of Death (and other 'curses' in a less direct comparison)

see note from Diabolism:
Quote from: YS285
While information gathering is something of a
grey practice, summoning a demon and putting
it into service to kill is a clear-cut case of black
magic (there’s a straight line of connection
between the intent to kill and the summoning of
the demon; cue the First Law
).
bolding added
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Richard_Chilton

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2400
    • View Profile
Re: Non-lawbreaking curses
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2011, 08:45:03 PM »
When I think of "curses" that don't break the laws I generally think of using thaumaturgy to apply a consequence.

They are more or less simple to do - the target's endurance +4 (or +1 if you are pressed for time and feel lucky) + the level of the consequence.  Get a politician's DNA and right before the debate give him the mild social consequence of "Flushed Face" and he's going to have problems in the debate.

The "+1 if you are pressed for time and feel lucky" is riding the odds of the target rolling between -4 and +1 - which means it will probably work but there's no guarantee - but you save three steps of prep work and casting.

Richard