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.
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.
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.
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.Actually, there is nothing subtle about it.
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.
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.)
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.
While information gathering is something of abolding added
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).