Bad Luck Curse?

[devonapple]

My issue with custom powers that are reskins of the Rituals power is that such a power implies active effort, preparation, and a decent Lore skill to do anything useful on the fly, unless the reskinning includes hacking which skills it will use. Has anyone come up with a good and fair hack?

[sinker]

I didn't even think about the Laws. In concept, the character pretty much just uses it for the lulz, so I don't anticipate First Law infractions. Maybe the juice could get turned up enough to call down ballistic frozen turkey strikes once in a blue moon, but only on monsters that probably deserved it anyway.

I think any law talk is actually about the idea that changing someone's luck is actually transforming that person (since you're actually changing something that is central to the person). Personally I hate that concept, but it is supported by RAW (in the second law section, the transformation/disruption part of thaumaturgy and the entropomancy part as well).

[braincraft]

I think any law talk is actually about the idea that changing someone's luck is actually transforming that person (since you're actually changing something that is central to the person). Personally I hate that concept, but it is supported by RAW (in the second law section, the transformation/disruption part of thaumaturgy and the entropomancy part as well).

I'm under the impression that 'luck' isn't an integral part of identity; that it's more like 'breath' than 'kidney'. Tacking on an entropy curse is probably frowned upon, but my understanding of the metaphysics as presented in the setting doesn't support your reading. The example entropy curse (p296, YS) mentions the first and even seventh laws, but not the second.

[Drachasor]

Have to agree with Braincraft.  Entropy Curses are only connected to transformations for mechanical reasons, not Law Breaking ones as far as I can tell.  Certainly there's no reason to think of it as any different than say wounding someone and inflicting any other sort of consequence.

Now, on the very, very extreme end, such as inflicting the curse of a Loup Garou on someone, that IS breaking the 4th Law, just like the extreme end of zapping someone with electricity will kill someone rather than stun.  In each of those one is fine as far as laws go and the other isn't.

[sinker]

Meh, like I said I hate the idea, and don't run it this way personally, but it totally comes from the RAW. Check it out.

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.

Emphasis is mine.

[Drachasor]

It says "most prone", not that it will necessarily violate a law.  Remember all the other stuff it is lumping in there too.

I could see an Extreme Consequence Bad Luck spell breaking the Law though, as that will cause a massive change in someone.  Short of that though, I don't see it for luck-based stuff.  It's a lot easier if you are directly messing with the mind, body, or emotions of someone, however.

I suppose a very unfriendly GM might try to enforce that any use of such things violates the law.  I don't think that makes sense.  Entropomancy is dark stuff, sure, but are many things like summoning demons.  A lot of darker magic doesn't inherently break a law, even if the Council wouldn't particularly like it.