Can A Spell Deal Mental Stress?

[Selrach]

Illusion can fall into the gray areas of the Laws depending on what type it is. There is just a straight projection like a hologram or the more gray-tastic phantasm which subtly draws upon its target's mind to enhance its believability. 

A projection could be more like a opposed check to believe while a phantasm would be more like a maneuver.

[Papa Gruff]

To me it is pretty clear. You can attack the mental stress track directly with magic (like Tsunami stated). The book says so:

Shortcuts exist—certain triggers in the
character’s history might allow access to deeper
recesses of the mind. Perhaps the most terrifying
example of this is the mind magic available
to wizards or the mental powers of other
supernatural creatures. Even as total strangers,
these people can instantly strike at the heart
of what makes people who they are, forcing
them to be temporary thralls to the creature’s
will—or worse. (YW 217)

Although it hasn't come up yet in our games I believe that it might be pretty difficult to handle for the GM. If a wizard in my game would ever try it in a situation where it isn't absolutely necessary I'd make sure to make a note of it on my sheet, even if it's "only" a supernatural entity. In later and similar situations I might consider to compel the PC to use his mind mojo again as it did him so much good last time, even if it would be a mortal that opposes him (always take a good look on the players FP stack before doing something like this).

An option to prevent it outright is to compel the wizard to not to know how to do it in the first place using the "Blind Spots" rule (YW 179).

[toturi]

In later and similar situations I might consider to compel the PC to use his mind mojo again as it did him so much good last time, even if it would be a mortal that opposes him (always take a good look on the players FP stack before doing something like this).

Shouldn't the PC be compel-able only if he acquires such an Aspect through using his mind magic? Or is the GM unilaterally placing the Aspect on the PC without player approval?

[Papa Gruff]

Shouldn't the PC be compel-able only if he acquires such an Aspect through using his mind magic? Or is the GM unilaterally placing the Aspect on the PC without player approval?

I'd argue that there's no need to place an extra aspect on the PC. In my opinion the high concept becomes compellable in this circumstance as it has to have "wizard" somewhere in it. The compel would follow the logic that a wizard, who has once experienced how useful mind magic can be to get rid of an opponent, will be tempted to use it again. It comes down to aspect interpretation and negotiation of the compel.

Anyways. So far i haven't been in a situation where I had the need to compel this way. I'm curious to opinions here, as discussions about if compels like this are valid or not appear frequently at our table, yet I don't want to high jack the thread. Perhaps I'll open an other one for this.  

[MyNinjaH8sU]

I'd argue that there's no need to place an extra aspect on the PC. In my opinion the high concept becomes compellable in this circumstance as it has to have "wizard" somewhere in it. The compel would follow the logic that a wizard, who has once experienced how useful mind magic can be to get rid of an opponent, will be tempted to use it again. It comes down to aspect interpretation and negotiation of the compel.

Anyways. So far i haven't been in a situation where I had the need to compel this way. I'm curious to opinions here, as discussions about if compels like this are valid or not appear frequently at our table, yet I don't want to high jack the thread. Perhaps I'll open an other one for this. 

I personally think that is reasonable, and while one should always talk with their players about it to a degree, it more than makes sense to me.

[Becq]

To me it is pretty clear. You can attack the mental stress track directly with magic (like Tsunami stated). The book says so:

I saw that section, though it looks to me as though they are talking about psychomancy, which is Thaumaturgical.  I don't see any of the Evocation elements that mentions attacks against the mind, and the description of mental combat backs up the feeling that mental combat is generally of the slow, insidious type.  WCV powers are a notable exception.

[Papa Gruff]

I saw that section, though it looks to me as though they are talking about psychomancy, which is Thaumaturgical.  I don't see any of the Evocation elements that mentions attacks against the mind, and the description of mental combat backs up the feeling that mental combat is generally of the slow, insidious type.  WCV powers are a notable exception.

I think evocation is implied. The section talks about "instantly strike[ing]" the victims. That can not be done with thaumaturgy. You might not be able to find an example in the rule book, but the novels will give you an idea.

Think about Corpstakers mind magic. Thats clearly not thaumaturgie. Think about Mollies manipulation of her friends. I'd classify that as intuitive evocation too, as I doubt she used any links to accomplish it. Psychomancy may (usually) be a part of thaumaturgy, but I think there can be no doubt that the brute force of evocation can do it too.

[Becq]

Think about Corpstakers mind magic. Thats clearly not thaumaturgie. Think about Mollies manipulation of her friends. I'd classify that as intuitive evocation too, as I doubt she used any links to accomplish it. Psychomancy may (usually) be a part of thaumaturgy, but I think there can be no doubt that the brute force of evocation can do it too.

No, Corpsie was using Kemmlerian Necromancy, which allows psychomancy at evocation's speed:
"In addition, Kemmlerites have shown
varying amounts of ability to exercise necromantic
(page 286) and psychomantic (page 286)
spell effects with evocation’s speed and methods,
coloring such evocations with the alien chill of
death itself."
And I'm pretty sure Molly was using minor Thaumaturgy, but it isn't clear either way (she wouldn't need links if the 'victim' was present).

[mostlyawake]

Hm.  You know, I think I've been looking at mental damage in the wrong way.  I've been seeing it as sort of amind blast type of a thing -- like punching, but mentally -- which would, therefore be great for things like knocking people out without physical trauma.  Reading through YS more carefully, I think I'm agreeing with mostlyawake.  Mental conflicts are about attacking the target's thought processes, and inflicting consequences that represent a forced change in their mental processes.  As such, then all use of magic for mental attacks would be basically a variation on the theme of mind control, and would be a violation when used on people.

It looks as though what I thought of as a mental attack -- the magical sucker-punch to the cranium, thus knocking them out -- would still be a physical attack, doing physical stress, with physical consequences (like "Whanging headache" or "Stunned" or "Concussed" instead of "Profuse Bleeding" or "Broken Leg", but still physical consequences nonetheless).

Hm.

Then again, wouldn't illusions count as a mental maneuver, resulting in an aspect along the lines of "I see purple elephants!"?  And the discussion of Harry's love potion makes it sound as though there is some grey area where certain mental manipulation is too minor to count as "enthrallment".

Ok, I thought the mist was clearing, but perhaps not.  :p

An illusion is a smoke and mirror (ok, magic light) show that creates an EXTERNAL effect, and is detected by a sensory organ (eyes, ears, ect), which is then translated into thought internally.  Thus, it remains physical, and is defeated (most likely) by a high physical roll (alertness, modified by lore, perhaps). 

Putting a thought into your enemy's head (making ONE person hear voices, perhaps, and doing so internally instead of just creating a whisper by their ear) is probably 3rd law? (never invade the mind of another), if not it's clearly 4th law (mentally tampering with them to change their behavior).

For that matter, rendering someone blind is physical (although still lawbreaking possibly, as it's transformation.  Shooting their eyes out with fire = fine; making a spell that just makes them blind might be lawbreaking) but making a spell that leaves their eyes intact but makes them not understand the data received is mental lawbreaking.

Weird, huh?

Creating a bubble of darkness around their head that moves with them is the safest bet, but if you then kill them, you just used magic to help you do so... lawbreaker!

Screw it. Buy a gun.

[toturi]

I'd argue that there's no need to place an extra aspect on the PC. In my opinion the high concept becomes compellable in this circumstance as it has to have "wizard" somewhere in it. The compel would follow the logic that a wizard, who has once experienced how useful mind magic can be to get rid of an opponent, will be tempted to use it again. It comes down to aspect interpretation and negotiation of the compel.

Anyways. So far i haven't been in a situation where I had the need to compel this way. I'm curious to opinions here, as discussions about if compels like this are valid or not appear frequently at our table, yet I don't want to high jack the thread. Perhaps I'll open an other one for this.  

But the High Concept has not changed. Thus that compelling that High Concept should be no different before or after using the spell.
I just seems wrong to me that just because someone has used the right tool for the job, it changes him in some fundamental though small manner. If the character had a prior Aspect such as "Taking the easier way" or some such, then I think the compel would be justified. But if the character just has "Wizard", I do not think the compel is fair, it just looks like a disguised attempt at compelling the character towards a "Lawbreaker".

[Papa Gruff]

No, Corpsie was using Kemmlerian Necromancy, which allows psychomancy at evocation's speed:
"In addition, Kemmlerites have shown
varying amounts of ability to exercise necromantic
(page 286) and psychomantic (page 286)
spell effects with evocation’s speed and methods,
coloring such evocations with the alien chill of
death itself."
And I'm pretty sure Molly was using minor Thaumaturgy, but it isn't clear either way (she wouldn't need links if the 'victim' was present).

Oh right ... I forgot about that. No link needed is also true. So my examples are not dead on, yet the other part of my post stands. I still think mental stress through evocation is implied, but probably only the brute force is possible you'd use to create rough thralls...

But the High Concept has not changed. Thus that compelling that High Concept should be no different before or after using the spell.
I just seems wrong to me that just because someone has used the right tool for the job, it changes him in some fundamental though small manner. If the character had a prior Aspect such as "Taking the easier way" or some such, then I think the compel would be justified. But if the character just has "Wizard", I do not think the compel is fair, it just looks like a disguised attempt at compelling the character towards a "Lawbreaker".

I'm not of the opinion that aspects are only compellable to the letter of their word. Pretty much every aspect goes deeper then that. If the high concept has "Wizard" in it, then that means that the character is a human and thus object to temptation like any other human being. The lust for power is one of the oldest temptations and to an extend that is what I'd compel. If he uses gray magic to accomplish his goals, then he'd be likely to do it again. That is the reason behind it... Now if the aspect would be "White Council Wizard Hardliner" that would limit me in the way I could compel in this direction, as the aspect states explicitly that he wouldn't do such things. But then I could compel him against using gray magic in the first place...

There have been lengthy discussions about compels towards lawbreaking on this board. I'm of the opinion that it is in no way unfair to compel in this direction because it can make for a horrendously interesting and fun story. However I'd be extremely cautious when to do it. For example I would never compel in this direction if the PC is on zero FP. Anyways: the player hasn't to take the compel. He may haggle about the terms of the compel. Or he may take the FP and act as compelled.

That said I understand completely why this might be seen as "unfair". We've discussed that at our game table more then I liked. However: only compelling when it seems "fair" or like the player likes it is impossible, doesn't make for an interesting story and degrades the aspect mechanics to only it's boosting part. I don't believe that is how it is supposed to be.

Fate isn't always fair! Some would argue it never is...

EDIT: Fixed some stuff...

[ralexs1991]

I was actually under the impression that the Winter Knight and Summer Knight are out of the purview of the White Council, concerning the laws.

they aren't which is why in my game one of the PCs is the winter knight and a full blown necromancer this still causes a great deal of friction between him and the warden in the group

[MyNinjaH8sU]

they aren't which is why in my game one of the PCs is the winter knight and a full blown necromancer this still causes a great deal of friction between him and the warden in the group

I think everything relevant here is actually under the section about the Unseelie Accords in Our World. It talks about how supernatural organizations are expected and required to police their own so that wars don't start, and that disagreements are why things like Accorded Neutral Ground and the Code Duello exist.

[ralexs1991]

I think everything relevant here is actually under the section about the Unseelie Accords in Our World. It talks about how supernatural organizations are expected and required to police their own so that wars don't start, and that disagreements are why things like Accorded Neutral Ground and the Code Duello exist.

that's pretty much how i remeber it going

[Becq]

I'm glad you liked my quote, ralexs.  Could you do me a favor and correct the punctuation to incude a '?' for the second sentence?  Enjoy!

Oh right ... I forgot about that. No link needed is also true. So my examples are not dead on, yet the other part of my post stands. I still think mental stress through evocation is implied, but probably only the brute force is possible you'd use to create rough thralls...

Creating thralls is a good example.  There is one place where hard rules on creating thralls is laid out: the rules for Domination (YS172).  Using Domination, it takes a day to create a Renfield, and three days to create an enhanced Renfield.  This assumes that you've got your victim completely at your mercy and that you've spent two (or four for enhanced) refresh on a dedicated power.  While I don't claim that mortal magic is incapable of duplicating this effect (the material clearly implies that it can) I think that at the very least, the time would be in line with the dedicated power, which should be *better* at doing so than a more generic power.

As such, creating a Renfield with Psychomancy should probably take on the order of a day or two to do.  (Not neccessarily as one continuous ritual, though -- perhaps it requires three rituals, each at the dead of midnight on three consecutive nights.)  In any case, it certainly should NOT be allowed at the speed of evocation.  And this includes those with Kemmlerian Necromancy, unless they can manage an evocation capable of taking a target out in one roll (similar to transformation rules).