You're a Bear! (Mental Maneuvers and Lawbreaking)

[wyvern]

Re: spoiler block: 

(click to show/hide)

No, for the same reason that sparring with wooden swords is different from breaking someone's legs with a baseball bat, or that healing magic isn't a second law violation.  The end effect is important - and in the case of sparring, the net mental effect is at most equivalent to a few bruises - nothing in the way of serious injury or transformative effect.

In particular, sparring doesn't result in the competitors being compelled to do something they otherwise wouldn't - the way even a maneuver of "you're a bear" might compel someone to go looking for honey.

[computerking]

There’s a question as to how far is too far when it comes to mental Maneuvers. Does a maneuver that causes a target to temporarily see Blue as Green, because you want them to buy the wrong color sweater for their friend for the holidays, count as Lawbreaking?  The acting character hasn’t violated the target’s free will at all, their sense of self remains intact, and they have the will to choose which sweater to buy, but their perception of their options is altered. This is a far cry from making them think they are a bear, but it seems some want to lump all mental effects together, despite the possibility of a canonical exception.

As for the arguments that hinge on the possibility of the aspect being compelled, or tagged for effect, That’s a meta-concern, that I think might not need to have as much bearing on the caster character’s Soul as it’s being given. True compels are the realm of the GM, anyway, and tagging for effect isn’t an absolute: there’s some room for negotiation in there, with the GM, and both players, as to what happens. Mister “You’re a Bear” may negotiate that your tag for effect results in him trying to maul you…

True, I cited an extreme possibility to start this off, but what I really want is a ballpark idea of where the line is that crosses into Lawbreaking.  I’m really doubtful that the designers wanted absolutely all mental effects to be verboten.

[devonapple]

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:
Consider the special effect of the spell, the explanation for how it does something (Method).
Consider the intended results of the spell (Intent).
Consider the actual results of the spell (Results).
If any one of these (Method, Intent or Results) would break a Law, regardless of the other two, then Lawbreaking has occurred.

Method and Intent usually incur a Lawbreaker stunt, as they reflect willingness and determination to do harm with magic, and if discovered, will definitely incur White Council Retaliation.
Results alone do not necessarily incur a Lawbreaker stunt, but they can; either way, they will definitely incur White Council investigation and/or retaliation.

[computerking]

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

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?

[sinker]

One of the issues I see with Devonapple's thoughts is they were formed while discussing a law that has no grey area; the first law. Either something is dead or it's not, there's no in between. The fourth law is more nebulous. When have we "Enthralled" someone? That's the question.

[Becq]

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.

I should point out that I'm only saying that your example is poor, not your argument as a whole.

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.

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.

Of course, the energies of the spell *could* be unravelled via magic, but that would require an evocation or thaumaturgy of strength similar to the spell that created the aspect.

Yes, it could have been a consequential spell as you suggested, but consider that Molly was untrained.  A spell of complexity 5-7 (inflicting a maneuver-based aspect lasting between a day and a week) that she refreshed as needed would be more likely than a high complexity spell of the sort needed to take a target out.  Besides, I believe the books described it as an ongoing series of minor 'tweaks' to the victim's psyche, which also sounds like the maneuver-based approach.

As to what constitutes, enthrallment, perhaps this quote would help, taken from the first paragraph of the discussion of the Fourth Law:

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.

Note that influencing a behavior by changing external stimulus is considered fine.  That is, if you change the data reaching him rather than changing how he processes the data, your safe, at least as far as the metaphysical Laws are concerned.  So Veils are fine, since you're changing the light patterns before they reach a target.  But you could just as easily alter someone's mind so that it simply refuses to see you, and this would be a Lawbreaking act, despite the result being the same.

If any one of these (Method, Intent or Results) would break a Law, regardless of the other two, then Lawbreaking has occurred.

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 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?

[devonapple]

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?

I can come up with a few, but if you want me to provide rulings and justifications on anything specific, please post a concise list of items for which you'd want my input:

Mental Illusions, resisted by Discipline, used to project a mere image - possible Law 3 violation, possible Lawbreaker stunt

Mental Illusions, resisted by Discipline, used with intent to influence a decision - Law 3 violation, Lawbreaker stunt

Mental Illusions, resisted by Discipline, used with intent to cloud a mind  - Law 3 violation, Lawbreaker stunt

Optical Illusions, resisted by Alertness or Discipline, used to project a mere image - no violation

Optical Illusions, resisted by Alertness or Discipline, used to obscure a target - no violation

Optical Illusions, resisted by Alertness or Discipline, used to obscure a trap or otherwise trick a victim into death - Law 1 violation, Lawbreaker stunt

Projective Empathy, resisted by Discipline, used to communicate - gray area, Law 3 violation unlikely

Projective Empathy, resisted by Discipline, used to mislead - Law 3 violation, Lawbreaker stunt

Projective Empathy, resisted by Discipline, used to project sensory data likely or intended to cause psychological damage - Law 3 violation, Lawbreaker stunt

Projective Empathy, resisted by Discipline, used to project sensory data which accidentally causes psychological damage - gray area, Law 3 threat

Mind Control, resisted by Discipline, used to do anything (picking a different sweater, murdering a politician, marital infidelity) - Law 3 violation

Mind Control, resisted by Discipline, used with intent to influence a decision - Laws 3 and 4, Lawbreaker stunt

Mind Control, resisted by Discipline, used with intent to cloud a mind  - Law 3 violation, Lawbreaker stunt

Mind Control, resisted by Discipline, used with intent to change an Aspect - Law 3 and/or possibly 4 violation, Lawbreaker stunt

Mind Control, resisted by Discipline, used to change an Aspect to obedience of the caster - Law 4 violation, Lawbreaker stunt

Sense Emotions, resisted by Discipline, only to gain a vague sense of target's emotional state - Law 3 violation, Lawbreaker stunt, but little chance of White Council prosecution - this one is special, because a spellcaster will argue that this isn't netting any more information than an acute Rapport check, but the fact is that it's not a mundane Rapport check - this is like saying that the bolt of negative energy ultimately isn't any worse than a handgun, which sidesteps the point - this one also presupposes that people's minds give off energy, and if you're scooping emotions from the air AROUND the target, it's not mental invasion, but that is a presupposition without sufficient precedence in the fiction to matter

Sense Emotions, resisted by Discipline, to get a clear sense of target's emotions, make assessments, and/or discover Aspects - Law 3 violation, Lawbreaker stunt

[sinker]

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.

What? Now that's just actually wrong. Here's a quote from the thaumaturgy section:

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.

[devonapple]

What? Now that's just actually wrong. Here's a quote from the thaumaturgy section:

AAAaaaand, in the very next paragraph (again, YS, p 266):

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.

In fact, thank you for the opportunity to revisit the paragraph, as the following is a good thing to keep in mind: "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." This establishes that it doesn't matter whether it is a trigger effect, the persistence of an Aspect, or whatever: the duration is treated the same.

[sinker]

Ok, now I'm just confused. Directly contradicting statements right next to each other do not make for a concrete rules set...

[Becq]

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):

Many of the  effects of thaumaturgy are expressed in system terms (ie, maneuvers, stress, consequences, etc).  Those existing systems have a set duration (ex: maneuvers and stress fade at the end of a scene).

The next paragraph goes on to describe how the thaumaturgy version of these effects use the same base duration, but can have their duration extended by adding complexity.  It even gives a very specific example of a maneuver-based curse that has its duration extended to a full day.  I had already quoted you that section in the post you responded to...   

[devonapple]

Note that your original quote says "many" not "all." And they were talking about how the effects NORMALLY work. It's not a contradiction.

What they did was reiterate a baseline understanding (how the player understands the rules thus far, re: duration) before adding new information about how Thaumaturgy can change the way duration works with spells. It just isn't contradictory if you read it all in sequence. They started with Evocation, and then explained how things change with Thaumaturgy.

People often err by holding fast to something from a single paragraph, when the framing paragraphs or even chapters provide valid information to modify and inform the message. Each paragraph is not a distinct rule unit. Context.

[Richard_Chilton]

Ok, now I'm just confused. Directly contradicting statements right next to each other do not make for a concrete rules set...

I don't see the contradiction.

Put the two together and you get something along the lines of:
The effect lasts only for X.  If you want the effect to last longer, then this how you do it.

Now it would have been better to word things along the lines of:
Normally the effect lasts only for X.  If you want the effect to last longer, then this how you do it.

I.E. put a qualifier in front of the "this is how it works" statement, but that would increase the word count.  Either way, the meaning of the rules is crystal clear.  You just have to read the entire rule (and not stop after finding something to justify a position) to see what the rule says.

Richard

[Tallyrand]

To the hard line on the 4th Law is clear, changing what a person believes/feels/or is (mentally speaking) is against the rules, changing what someone perceives or experiences is not.  One is manipulating someone's mind, the other someones senses.

[sinker]

I guess the words "Set duration" were probably a poor choice.

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.