Evocation vs Mental/Social Track

[Tedronai]

Wardens' opinions have little (if anything) to do with the Lawbreaker stunt.

[Vairelome]

Toot-Toot is Fae, and most definitely not human for the purposes of the Laws or anything else.  OW is referencing Morgan's blatant overreaching in Storm Front, when he was trying to find any remotely plausible excuse to head-choppy Harry.  When Harry calls him on trying to engineer a grey area out of setting a circle-trap for a dewdrop fairy, Morgan backed off--and since there was no audience, Morgan had to be admitting that he couldn't even justify calling Harry's actions Lawbreaking to himself.

There are some entities where there's a legitimate question as to their humanity for Laws purposes (WCVs are a classic example), but full Fae (not Changelings or Summer/Winter Knights) aren't in that category.  They aren't human.

[sinker]

This is the reason why I'm at least inclined to say that mental evocation is possible, Sanctaphrax.

Firstly the evocation section that describes attacks mentions absolutely nothing as to which conflict is appropriate for evocation. It could say that an attack does physical stress, however it only says that each shift increasing the weapon rating of the spell. It's tenuous, but it's only part of my reason.

The second part is the section on mental conflict. Mind magic is specifically mentioned as one of the few ways mentioned to initiate or take part in a mental conflict. Mental conflict is even mentioned as taking place during physical conflict. Since it's generally excepted that thaumaturgy can not take place during a conflict, then the only explanation is that these people are using evocation to deal mental stress.

It isn't direct RAW, but added to the cannon examples it makes me at least think that it should be possible.

[Tedronai]

It isn't direct RAW

The inclusion of mind magic as a subset of Spirit, however, is RAW, and I've yet to see a compelling argument to interpret that passage in any way other than allowing mental attacks that actually addresses that passage rather than the issue as a whole and really just amounts to an attempt to justify a (completely understandable) houserule.


tl;dr version:
If you're going to use houserules, fine, just call them what they are.

[sinker]

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with my conclusion, but disagreeing with how I got there?

[Sanctaphrax]

Ugh. Every time I hear something like "feel free to houserule it" it sounds a bit more insulting.

I feel as though this debate isn't going to be pleasant from here on out, so I'm not going to continue it.

I stand by what I said, though.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to accuse anyone of rudeness. Sorry if it seems that way.

[Silverblaze]

When I say house rule it, I mean nothing bad, I assure you.  i house rule the living crap out of things if need be.  I think every system needs some house rules.  Truly.  Hell, technically, every user created power or stunt made here is a house rule in some fashion.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yeah, I know. I'm a bit of a houseruler myself.

But when you're contending that something is actually part of the RAW and someone says, "feel free to houserule it that way", it's a bit like them saying, "WRONG!". It's very...blunt. Maybe even dismissive, if you're in a whiny mood.

[Silverblaze]

Yeah, I know. I'm a bit of a houseruler myself.

But when you're contending that something is actually part of the RAW and someone says, "feel free to houserule it that way", it's a bit like them saying, "WRONG!". It's very...blunt. Maybe even dismissive, if you're in a whiny mood.

Ah ok, agreed then.

[Tedronai]

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with my conclusion, but disagreeing with how I got there?

Agreeing with your conclusion save your claim that it's not RAW.

Yeah, I know. I'm a bit of a houseruler myself.

But when you're contending that something is actually part of the RAW and someone says, "feel free to houserule it that way", it's a bit like them saying, "WRONG!". It's very...blunt. Maybe even dismissive, if you're in a whiny mood.

Well, frankly, yes.  It was meant to be rather dismissive, at this point.

When, after asking for a train of logic that would lead from:

"Spirit also covers mental magic, emotions,ghosts – that sort of stuff." Your Story pg 255.

to

That would support some sort of mental evocations, yes.  But that could easily just be blocks and manouvers.

the best response provided is

Evocation is a limited form of magic. It can't do a whole lot that isn't a direct application of physical force. It stands to reason that it wouldn't be capable of really potent mental effects.

which doesn't even address the referenced passage at all, and is soundly refuted by a simple veil, both RAW and canon, I do feel rather dismissive as to the whole 'evocation mental attacks aren't RAW' argument.

I have nothing against a houserule banning mental attacks, and probably wouldn't bat an eyelash if my GM implemented one - there are sound arguments in favour of it from a game balance perspective - but seeing those houserules 'defended' (they don't really need to be defended on these boards: they're houserules) as being RAW on such flimsy bases strikes me as disingenuous.

[sinker]

I hate it when someone makes a strong statement just after one makes a reasoned argument. Everyone always responds to the former.

I was trying to give you specific quotes, Sanctaphrax (as you asked). I know it was a bit less specific than that, but since I was making references to whole paragraphs, I thought it might be tough. I'll give it a try though.

Evocation specifically not mentioning physical stress:

The shifts of power allocated to the spell may
be split up as follows:
1 shift of power increases the Weapon rating
by 1. So if you allocate 4 shifts of power to this,
your spell is treated as a Weapon:4 attack.

Mind magic as a method of making attacks in mental conflict:

The context of a mental attack is a little more
strictly defined when it comes to supernatural
abilities—the rules for the powers are given in
either Supernatural Powers (for White Court
vampires and their ilk) or Spellcraft (for wizards
and sorcerers), and the targets of those abilities
can use Discipline to defend against the attacks.

And mental conflict as part of physical conflict:

The only situation where
zones and movement might matter is if there’s
a mental conflict taking place as part of a larger,
physical one.

Additionally I believe the specific quote that most people reference this quote:

Spirit also covers mental magic, emotions,
ghosts – that sort of stuff.

Since it's specifically talking about mind magic with an evocation element.

[Sanctaphrax]

Eh. I appreciate the effort made searching, but...

The only one of those I find persuasive is the one from page 255, and even then I feel as though it's not an explicit statement.

The limits of what Evocation can do are pretty much arbitrary, and when I first read that mental attacks didn't even occur to me.

So I feel like a reading of the RAW could go either way.

But as I said earlier, I'm not really willing to argue it again.

[UmbraLux]

• Item #1:  Evocation can be used in four actions:  attacks, blocks, counterspells, and maneuvers.  (YS251-253 under the heading "What You Can Do With It".)
• Item #2:  There are five standard elements, each with various trappings.  (YS253-255 under the heading "Elements".)
• Item #3:  Mental / thought is one trapping of Spirit.  (YS255 under "Spirit" and in the side bar.)
• Conclusion:  With access to Spirit magic, you can use the four evocation actions with a mental trapping.

Any other conclusion requires arbitrarily redefining terms to somehow exclude one trapping when all others are included.

I agree with Tedronai at this point. 

[Tedronai]

That, and there's not a single explicit 'use X subset of Y element to make Attacks (as per the game mechanic of the same name)' statement in the whole of the Evocation subchapter, so expecting one for mental magic is setting a disproportionately high bar.
There is, in fact, as much RAW justification in that argument as there is in claiming that conspicuously large gouts of flame are incapable of being used as Attacks.

[ARedthorn]

Wouldn't be the first time a game included a rule-set that was dangerous, potentially game-breaking and inflammatory on said game's forums, not to mention ill-defined.

No matter what, everyone has to at least agree that it's not very well laid out in the book- or we wouldn't be here... and both sides have had fair points that prove their case. Believe it or not, both sides can be right.

Evocation's a bit of blunt instrument for something as complex as the mind... but if mental veils are possible, blunt instrument ought to be good enough for just direct damage.
The books do at least indirectly reference mental effects through spirit... but they hardly come close to giving it the coverage they deserve.

For me, I'm willing to allow it on basis of symmetry alone. Physical/Social/Mental stress and consequences operate near identically- and their conflicts are as close to identical as the game mechanics will let them get (things like zones/borders/etc can get hinky, but otherwise identical)... so there's very little reason why the parallel shouldn't continue into magic, given the right storytelling & descriptions.
If the game failed to include parallel effects to Toughness & Recovery, that's more likely an oversight than an indictment against mental attacks.
Likewise for power balance issues vs non-humans.

And me, I'd rather fix that oversight than rule out what caused it.... for lack of a better way to put it- surgery is always preferable to euthanasia.
So, if I can redirect the thread... what fixes would make the idea of direct mental damage acceptable to everyone?