You break the law if you use magic to do it but not if you just use mundane hypnotism.What about using magic to induce the hypnotic state faster than normal(perhaps a "Suggestible" Aspect Maneuver), then proceeding normally?
At least, that's my reading.
Funny, I'd have said that "These aren't the droids you're looking for" is a classic example of a fourth law violation.and this:
You break the law if you use magic to do it but not if you just use mundane hypnotism.Any use of magic (mundane hypnotism doesn't count) that changes a subjects thought patterns violates the Fourth Law. As an example, consider the 'borderline' case of Molly, who merely maneuvered a "I don't want drugs" aspect on her friend to help her recover from an addiction that threatened to kill her.
As an example, consider the 'borderline' case of Molly, who merely maneuvered a "I don't want drugs" aspect on her friend to help her recover from an addiction that threatened to kill her.
Personally I would call this a clear 4th Law violation, the law doesn't mention duration only effect.
The mechanism I have internalized for determining Lawbreaking (which you may or may not agree with or find useful) based on the Official Lawbreaking thread
Except for the fact that a maneuver lasts one scene, at most an hour or so, and the aspect may be removed by a few seconds effort, even by the target themselves. Molly's actions had effects that lasted for weeks and months. At the very least she inflicted severe consequences on her friends, but more likely she inflicted extreme consequences or even took them out, and remade them as she desired.Not true. A maneuver placed by Thaumaturgy lasts as long as the spell is created to make it last. The base time may be a scene, but with a few extra complexity added, it can last days, or even a lifetime.
I should point out that I'm only saying that your example is poor, not your argument as a whole.
So a curse that acts as a maneuver to put Bad Luck on a target might start from “15 minutes” (about the length of that particular scene), and you could make it last all day by adding five shifts of complexity to the spell.
A close cousin of the Third, the Fourth Law goes beyond the simple invasion of another’s mind to outright mastery over it. Here, enthralling is any effort made to change the natural inclinations, choices, and behaviors of another person.Even a spirit-based evocation maneuver to place "These are not the droids we are looking for" on a target long enough to drive past a checkpoint qualifies by the above definition -- it says nothing about permanency, only that an inclination, choice, or behavior was altered via mind magic.
If any one of these (Method, Intent or Results) would break a Law, regardless of the other two, then Lawbreaking has occurred.Could you resolve these two statements, devonapple? They appear to contradict, and I tend to disagree with the second statement. Also, can you give an example of a case where intent alone (without a Lawbreaking method or result) would be considered Lawbreaking?
Results alone do not necessarily incur a Lawbreaker stunt, but they can; either way, they will definitely incur White Council investigation and/or retaliation.
Could you give us a few examples of your method, perhaps based on some of the examples already presented in this thread?
Edit: And maybe a few more like, Mental Illusions, Sensing Emotions, and Projective Empathy?
Not true. A maneuver placed by Thaumaturgy lasts as long as the spell is created to make it last. The base time may be a scene, but with a few extra complexity added, it can last days, or even a lifetime.
Another thing to consider is duration. Many
of the effects of thaumaturgy are expressed in
system terms that already have a set duration—
maneuvers and stress don’t last beyond a scene,
and consequences remain until enough time has
passed that recovery is possible.
What? Now that's just actually wrong. Here's a quote from the thaumaturgy section:
It is possible to set up spells that last a great deal longer by adding complexity. You can choose to move the spell’s duration up one step on the time chart (page 315) starting from an appropriate default and adding one to the complexity for every step up you want to go. So a curse that acts as a maneuver to put Bad Luck on a target might start from “15 minutes” (about the length of that particular scene), and you could make it last all day by adding five shifts of complexity to the spell. Duration can be applied to a spell in a flexible sense—how long the energies will hang around until triggered, how long a particular effect will last, and so on.
What? Now that's just actually wrong. Here's a quote from the thaumaturgy section:What devonapple said. The section you quoted actually says this (me paraphrasing):
Ok, now I'm just confused. Directly contradicting statements right next to each other do not make for a concrete rules set...
Anyway I would still argue that Molly didn't maneuver, as later on we see the effects of the spell (damage to their psyche), but no currently active energies (or at least none that are mentioned). Additionally they talk about repairing the damage, which would be simple if it was a constant spell effect (counter it and it's done), however they speak of a long-term recuperative process. That seems more like consequences than a maneuver spell.True enough. Perhaps it was something in between a maneuver and a take-out. That is, perhaps it was, say, a moderate mental consequence inflicted (and re-inflicted to ensure the effect continued).
When you decide to take on that complexity with something as crude and simple as a compulsion, psychological trauma is inevitable.But lets assume for a moment that the Molly example actually reflects a messier consequence-based attack, and the maneuver-grade mental attacks are cleaner because they're temporary. Let's set up a scenario. A young sorceror is at a frat party, and meets a girl there that he would desperately like to get a bit closer to. She's just there to blow off a little steam and refuses his advances. He lays on a bit of mojo, placing an aspect "God, I need this man NOW!" on her. Maybe she spent her last Fate point trying to resist the urge to tell her bastard of a boss what she REALLY thought of his 'suggestions'. In any case, events proceed, and they spend some ... quality time together. They part ways, the 'scene' ends, the magic wears off ...
Because temporary aspects from maneuvers
are transient, these sorts of spells tend to be
very carefully timed or triggered so the aspect
or effect manifests when it’s needed (e.g., “I’ll
arrange it so he Can’t Think Straight right
at the moment he steps on stage”). For a more
lasting effect, it’s time to look at contests and
conflicts.
Finally the thing that bugs me most is that your examples seem to be describing a maneuver-to-take-out situation. Your mage maneuvers once, and the girl is completely his, as if he had taken her out or she had conceded. I hate that concept so very much. It robs the story of most of it's value and removes a lot of the challenge and enjoyment from any game. Even if I didn't dislike it, it's not RAW. Compels cannot dictate a course of action. A compel can narrow options, but they can never define a result. It's possible that in your example she reacted more favorably, but it is not the only course of action, and regardless it seems very unlikely that she would simply have given up.
It’s important to note that an aspect may
dictate the type of action when compelled this
way, but it usually won’t dictate the precise
action, which is always the player’s decision. In
this way, compelling the aspect highlights the
difficulty of the choices at hand by placing limits
on those choices, using the idea of the aspect to
define (or at least suggest) those limits.
For one thing a maneuvered aspect is still impermanent even if it has a duration of centuries. If someone inflicted a "confused" aspect on someone else, regardless of the duration the target could simply take a moment to collect themselves and the aspect is gone. Because that's how all maneuvers work. All maneuvers require only a counter-maneuver to remove, and there's no reason to believe that thaumaturgic maneuvers work any differently.Not exactly. Yes, you can remove a maneuver aspect with a countermaneuver. However, there is a roll involved in doing so. If the maneuever isn't being maintained, then this roll is largely a gimme (difficulty 0). However, if the maneuver is being actively maintained (either by the opponent for a mundane maneuver, or in this cas by a spell construct), then the roll is contested. Even a fairly low-grade thaumaturgy spell may be pretty tough to remove without some help (whether that help is a counterspell or even just a couple of appropriate aspects and some Fate points to power them.)
Actually the quote you put forward - about mind magic having long reaching consequences - seems to imply that consequences are more applicable in this situation.The advantage to consequences is that they don't go away even when the magic fades. So if I use a maneuver with the duration of a lifetime, but another wizard comes along the next day and does a ritual to remove it, then the aspect is gone. If I do a ritual that inflicts a severe consequence, all the counterspelling in the world will have no effect; that consequence is there until it is healed.
Maybe we could look at this another way. Would you allow a mage to add an eighth aspect to their character sheet? A ninth? More? If this is the way you look at maneuvers, then what's to prevent any of your players that have ritual from adding aspects. They wouldn't even need to perform huge rituals, just maybe 10 or 15 shifts every month or two.There are lots of ways to break DFRPG if the GM and the players aren't reasonable about it. Consider, for example, a character with "I succeed at everything" as several of his aspects. This could allow him to spend multiple Fate points on absolutely any test that he wanted to succeed at. Technically legal, but not exactly in the spirit of the game.
Finally the thing that bugs me most is that your examples seem to be describing a maneuver-to-take-out situation. Your mage maneuvers once, and the girl is completely his, as if he had taken her out or she had conceded. I hate that concept so very much. It robs the story of most of it's value and removes a lot of the challenge and enjoyment from any game. Even if I didn't dislike it, it's not RAW. Compels cannot dictate a course of action. A compel can narrow options, but they can never define a result. It's possible that in your example she reacted more favorably, but it is not the only course of action, and regardless it seems very unlikely that she would simply have given up.First of all, I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying. That said, to some extent, that's the way the game is built. Here are a few points to consider:
So in the first example above you could compel the girl to react favorably, but you can't compel her straight to bed.Yes and no. Lets say the girl's a player character, and I and the player have previously discussed and agreed that seduction scenes were fair game. My take is that in this particular case, the whole of the compel would take the form of the me stating "You feel a sudden, desperate need to be intimate with this man. How do you respond?" and tapping a chip suggestively against the card with the new aspect on it. At this point, the player chooses a response within the context. If the player said "I accept the compel an start toward the man, then think better of it and go home to sleep it off", I would suggest that the player try again. The wingman scenario I mentioned in my last post certainly be possible. Maybe the player could come up with another option that fits the context of the compel, but short of spending a Fate point to buy off the compel, the player's options are somewhat limited.