Blocking Magic Internally - Help

[Tedronai]

She took away choice, which is why it violated the fourth law. I am not taking away any choice.

The only differences are that yours is less controlled, more short-lived, and more damaging.
The choices you take away aren't your goal, but violently inserting your own emotions into another WILL result in the same sort of removal of choice.

Another reason why it violated the Law?  Or rather, why the Law is there in the first place?  Minds are complicated.  So when you're messing around inside one, no matter how careful you are, no matter how pure your intentions (see Molly), you WILL end up doing some damage.  You're skipping that careful part.  You're definitely skipping that 'good intentions' part.  You're setting out to do damage.

Transforming another is a violation for the same reason.  The person that comes out is not the person that went in.  This is exactly what will result from forcefully inserting your emotions into the mind of another.  You will change who they are.  And likely not in a beneficial direction.

[sinker]

Think about it this way. There is no "magic" in the DV, no "mana" or "power", there is only your being, your thoughts, your will.

Accepting that, what you are doing is forcibly inserting your thoughts/being into someone else with the intent of disrupting their thoughts/being. How would that not change their natural inclinations and thoughts?

Also you may want to reread the laws in Your Story. The fourth law is titled "Never enthrall another" which would imply direct or complete control, but when you read further it states that any attempt to change the natural inclinations or thoughts is bad.

[Lavecki121]

Then you cant do magic as an offensive thing. Whether it is physical or mental. If I do a magical attack, I am affecting my own mind, to the point that I can take consequences because of it. The attack does this exact thing to the reciever. I havent transformed them, I havent enthraled them, I have not invaded their thoughts. All I am doing is opening up their mind to the raw nature around it. Which causes mental stress.

Maybe this is a lawbreaker and I am just wrong. I feel that it could definitly be gray area and that wardens would be watching, but as far as my own interpretation at the moment, I havent been convinced that I am breaking a law.

[blackstaff67]

Then you cant do magic as an offensive thing. Whether it is physical or mental. If I do a magical attack, I am affecting my own mind, to the point that I can take consequences because of it. The attack does this exact thing to the reciever. I havent transformed them, I havent enthraled them, I have not invaded their thoughts. All I am doing is opening up their mind to the raw nature around it. Which causes mental stress.

Maybe this is a lawbreaker and I am just wrong. I feel that it could definitly be gray area and that wardens would be watching, but as far as my own interpretation at the moment, I havent been convinced that I am breaking a law.

First off, Wardens have been known to cut off heads when people venture into grey territory, just to be safe.  Ask Donald Morgan.
Second, if you're "opening up their mind" against their will, then you ARE invading their minds which is a no-no.  If you think about it, if you can do it and not get vorpal'd by the Wardens as a 4th Law violaotion, then ANYONE (any practitioner, that is) can do it willy-nilly.  For all intents and purposes, I'm interpreting what you're doing as the equivalent (not the same, but close) of forcing the Sight on an unwilling subject...and we all know what the Sight can do to a soul. 

I'm terribly sorry, but there's a legitimate reason that the Wardens use Circles and the like to take down rogue wizards and not mind magic such as what you're describing.   Pretty powerful juju you're messing with with MUCH more potential to destroy a human's mind.

[Haru]

All I am doing is opening up their mind to the raw nature around it. Which causes mental stress.

If their mind was closed and now it is open, it is a transformation in my book.

You are clinging to technicalities. Which is fine, if your table is up for it, but in my book, your kind of attack is definitely a lawbreaker. Remember, if a wizard holds someone with magic and then kills him with a knife, that is still considered lawbreaking, because magic was involved in the killing, even if it "only" was a passive part of the kill. It's the same with your attack. You might not shove the emotions into the others mind, but you create the circumstance that allows for it. Even more directly than my kill example above, I might add, because you could tie them down or have someone else hold them. Your attack ONLY works with magic.

And the laws do not include yourself. You can transform yourself all you want. And invading your own thoughts is kind of like breaking into your own home.

[Lavecki121]

I dont know anymore. I dont really care enough anymore either. Im probably wrong on all acounts. Thats fine. Thanks for helping me. Im done

[Taran]

question(s):

If you torture someone in front of someone else, the person watching might get traumatized by it.

If I use magic to show someone an image of someone else getting tortured and they get traumatized by it, is it a Lawbreaker?

If I show it to them in their mind's eye, is it a lawbreaker?

[Taran]

Think about it this way. There is no "magic" in the DV, no "mana" or "power", there is only your being, your thoughts, your will.

Accepting that, what you are doing is forcibly inserting your thoughts/being into someone else with the intent of disrupting their thoughts/being. How would that not change their natural inclinations and thoughts?

On another note, I thought it was established in this thread that affecting a person's magic cannot affect their mental state.  That they were two seperate entities.

Whereas I would say that damaging a wizard's access to their magic, if not promptly addressed, will cause 'damage' to their sense of being, but is not itself that damage.

So forcing backlash on a mage is just forcing them to control another spell.  If they fail, they take a mental hit.  That mental hit is just a result of the wizards inability to control that energy.  The attack, itself, has little to do with their sense of being.

[Haru]

If I show it to them in their mind's eye, is it a lawbreaker?

Yes, no questions asked. Even if he gets (and succeds in) a defense roll, this is a lawbreaker.

If I use magic to show someone an image of someone else getting tortured and they get traumatized by it, is it a Lawbreaker?

This one is sketchier, but I would judge yes here, too. Think about it: you are using your magic to create an image that is horrifying enough for someone else to get traumatized by. Why would that leave you untouched? You either have an issue or will have an issue as a result.
Magic works through what you believe, so in this instance, you believe it is ok to project such a horrifying image onto another human being. Or that such a horrifying image is ok in the first place.

[Lavecki121]

I actually agree with Haru on this one. Those seem like blatant mind altering things through the use of magic.

That being said what I am doing is not that. I am basically giving them X shifts to control. If they dont control X shifts when they roll and get Y, they take X-Y shifts of backlash. Which they are used to getting anyway because it happens Everytime they cast as spell

[Taran]

That being said what I am doing is not that. I am basically giving them X shifts to control. If they dont control X shifts when they roll and get Y, they take X-Y shifts of backlash. Which they are used to getting anyway because it happens Everytime they cast as spell

Sorry I'm confused.

Are you modelling it as a normal attack?  A power 5 spell would be a weapon 5 attack defended against 'X" skill and extra shifts would go to damage? Or would their defense also act as their control for a power 5 spell?

So, for the latter, assuming you roll an 8 control/target roll for a power 5 spell. If the target rolls 5 or higher they'd take no damage despite getting hit?

If they rolled under a 5, they'd take damage equal to 5 minus their roll?

The other way of doing it is have the difference between your attack and their defense be the amount of shifts they need to control.  This would effectively be a weapon 0 attack.  The problem with that is the power of the spell would be irrelevant -  there'd be no difference between a power 1 or a power 5 spell.  I guess you could say that the power of the spell is the Maximum amount of damage inflicted...

It certainly goes away from the standard evocation attack...

[Lavecki121]

true. I may have confused myself. Let me retry that. Or maybe that is how I am modeling this.

I am wondering if this could be a mixture. however that would end up being really complicated so nevermind.

I guess I would say that it would depend on what you defended with. If, to use your example, I call up 5 shifts and do an 8 to targeting and they defend with discipline to control the magic they are getting then they would only need to get a 5. But if they defended with athletics to try and avoid the hit alltogether, then they would need an 8. The same would be true if I called up 5 shifts but rolled a 3. maybe not because that is not how magic works. I dont know. trying to figure this out. Suggestions?

[Mr. Death]

You can't really force someone to take backlash. There's always the option of letting it go as Fallout.

What you're describing really isn't part of any of the attack/defense rules in the game, and appears to jump through too many hoops for my tastes.

[Haru]

I'm sorry, but the whole thing reeks to me of trying to get the quickest and easiest way to shut down a wizard without having any of the costs.

Mr. Death said it quite good, those things are not really how things work. They might, if you want to put it in as a houserule, but I find it rather strange, at the least.

One thing I might want to add: You are mixing conflicts, and that in itself is going to be all kinds of confusing.
You might consider making the attack a justification to begin a mental conflict, which will happen in its entirety during one exchange of the physical conflict. This would, again, only justify a maneuver + tag for effect. You would basically battle the wizard over the control of his magic, but he could, in return, attack you. This I would see as much less harming and much more balanced.

What is wrong with the numerous other options presented? A block? A maneuver? A block/maneuver incite emotion like ability. Spending a fate point to compel the wizards high concept? Those are all things that are already established in the rules, and they work pretty good. Not trying to be snarky, I just didn't get why you don't like them.

[Lavecki121]

I do like them. I am asking how to do this attack. Which I dont see as broken. I was trying to get my point across as to why it delivered mental stress so I described it as a sort of forced backlash. Obviously you cant force them to take thier own backlash but if there is excess magic inside thier body that is what that is. Also the other ideas are much quicker, much easier ways of shutting down wizards.