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.
In the case of a wizard creating a permanent spell-based advantage (assuming that the aspect was otherwise 'reasonable'), I'd look at ways to balance it out. That 'free' aspect they added can be compelled, and since it inherently represents the presence of an ongoing spell (despite its wording), it can be compelled to reflect trouble caused by that ongoing spell. For example, if they character placed "Extraordinary Strength" on himself, I might compel it to reflect muscle strain caused as a side effect. Or perhaps an evil Sorceror takes note of the active spell on the character when he might have otherwise him. Or I might suggest that the character "doesn't know his own strength" and accidental breaks something or hurts someone. Bottom line? I suppose the wizard can add the aspect, but aspects are often two-edged swords.
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:
1) Just to be clear, were I a GM, I would *never* do something like this to a player, at least not without discussing it with them OOC first. See also the "That Warning Thing" sidebar on YS217. My assumption was that this was an NPC, thus the lack of alternatives available. If it were a player, and there were no other options I'd probably allow them to buy off the compel with debt to avoid the immediate situation, then treat the debt (which would last past the duration of the spell) as some undefined mental trauma that would cause trouble later.
2) What is the difference between an aspect placed on a character during creation vs and aspect put on the character via a maneuver? Well, one is (generally speaking) permanent, and the other is transitory. But at a particular instant, all aspects in play on a character are pretty much equally in play. There's no difference at any particular moment between an aspect "I'm deathly afraid of clowns" chosen at character creation and the same aspect inflicted by a maneuver and the same apsect inflicted by a consequence. The only difference is that the first is permanent (unless changed at a milestone or by an extreme consequence), while the other two will disappear on their own at some point, depending on circumstances. All three can be compelled, all three allow the compel to be bought off, etc.
3) Consider the case of Incite Emotion. The example I gave is basically canon for how Incite Emotion works: you generate a maneuver, then you exploit that maneuver in much the way I described, though typically with some feeding involved. Look at the way the Raiths are portrayed in the books, and consider that for the typical Raith (ie, one without the upgrades), those results are generated via maneuver. Anything a WCV can do with a emotional maneuever can also be done using mind magic.
4) Aspects of any sort (including those based on maneuvers or even consequences) are not sure things. They limit actions and possibly dictate types of actions, but leave the details up to the player. Another possible resolution of the scenario being discussed is that the girl was at the part with a friend (perhaps its two player characters, in this case). The girl started to succomb (took the compel), but her friend noticed her very odd behavior (especially considering she was happily engaged!) and intervened. This opens a new line of possibilities. If the sorceror pushes the situation, perhaps the friend calls on some large frat boys she knows, and perhaps a combat scene ensues if the antagonist doesn't back down. Regardless, though, the spell might have an effect that outlives its duration. A reputation for being 'easy', for example, despite the fact that the friend intervened, and many of the other questions raised in the original example. In this (contrived) scenario, none of that happened. There was no 'friend' to intervene, and in any case the GM decided that the (NPC) girl succombed for story reasons.
5) Continuing on the 'not a sure thing' bit, compels can generally be bought off with Fate points, but in this (contrived) scenario, the victim was out of Fate, leaving her vulnerable. Remember, Fate is a reflection of a character's capacity to exercise free will; no Fate to a large extent means no real Free Will (at least for the moment) and therefore a no capability to fight against one's nature. This is something of a core principle in DFRPG. In this example, the spellcaster has
changed the target's nature based on the new aspect. Mind magic is NASTY STUFF.
Again, much of this represents a fairly extreme result of a mental maneuver to prove the point that such spells can be dangerous even as "mere maneuvers".
