Can A Spell Deal Mental Stress?

[devonapple]

I was reading Rick Neal's blog entries about "Magic in DFRPG" (http://www.rickneal.ca/?p=629) and he encourages attacking the Mental stress track:

. In particular, look for opportunities to attack physically tough opponents in their Mental Stress track – it’s likely less robust than their physical one. It’s also a good place to kick enemy spellcasters – they probably have better mental defenses, but any hit takes away some of the battery they can use to attack you back with evocation.

Attacking someone’s Mental Stress track is a good way to avoid an accidental First Law violation: you’re less likely to kill someone that way. But you need to be careful about the type of attack to avoid a Third or Fourth Law violation. This can have unpleasant consequences for your character, though it can also provide some interesting drama and roleplaying.

[ralexs1991]

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!

why yes i do beleive i can do that and yeah i thought it was hilarious

[neko128]

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).

Not everyone agrees with you.    There's no reason why illusions cannot be a physical process, a mental process, or a combination of the two.  They have advantages and disadvantages.

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).

In my mind, that's a slippery slope argument.  It's trivial to argue that peoples' behavior will be changed by pain, bright light, annoying sounds, or any number of other things...  But it's a dangerous precedent to say that anything that changes their mind violates the 4th law unless you directly change it for them.  Is a stimulus that makes them reach the decision you want the same as making the decision for them?  Setting someone on fire isn't directly law-breaking - they're not dead (yet), transformed, mind-read, or mind-controlled; it has no relation to necromancy, no relation to time at all, and no relation to the Outsiders other than that they might be amused.  But where is the line between mentally tampering to change their behavior?  Saying that letting them reach the decision you want due to a stimulus is the same as making the decision for them and imposing it on their mind logically leads to the conclusion that setting someone on fire is a violation of the 4th law.

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.

Again, I don't agree.  A spell that chooses their actions to be what you want based on visual input, mind-control and law-breaking; but there's a difference between not allowing them to receive the signals from their eyes (as long as it doesn't violate transformation) and changing how they act upon those signals.  If you disrupt the nerve signals from their eyes to their brain, is that lawbreaking?  If you cloak their eyes with darkness, is that lawbreaking?  If you cloak their entire head - or the entire room - in darkness, is that lawbreaking?

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!

...And yet again, I simply don't agree.  They're dead because you shot them; not because you put a bubble of darkness around their head to stop them from shooting you.  Very, very slippery-slope; following your logic, using magic to create an impenetrable cloak (so that shooting you doesn't kill you...) is a violation of the first law the if you shoot someone in self-defense because they shot you first.

[mostlyawake]

Take all of my statements as if said from a warden's perspective: there are no shades of grey, just black and blacker.  Everything is a slippery slope, ending in necromantic warlocks summoning ancient evils to negotiate pacts for the souls of innocent virgins.  Don't do drugs, and be VERY careful if you try to assault someone's mental stress track. Be VERY careful if you use magic in any fashion against a mortal.

As for whether or not any or all of it gets you a lawbreaker stunt, only you and your group can determine that. 

But I'm right either way, because I've got a grey cloak and a really sharp badge of office.

[neko128]

But I'm right either way, because I've got a grey cloak and a really sharp badge of office.

...All right, but the first time you execute someone because "ZOMG!  They used magic to generate soap and clean their car, then someone slipped on it and broke their neck!  SLIPPERY SLOPE!"  you're gonna get executed as a rogue.

[Becq]

...All right, but the first time you execute someone because "ZOMG!  They used magic to generate soap and clean their car, then someone slipped on it and broke their neck!  SLIPPERY SLOPE!"  you're gonna get executed as a rogue.

The difference, I think, is one of intention.  The person who conjured soap for their car had no destuctive/vengeful/hostile thoughts going through their mind as that same mind formed the spell.  It was the act of free will on behalf of the 'victim' that resulted in the death, not that of the caster.

The best litmus test I've been able to come up with so far is this: was there an act of free will that directly led to the death and that was distinct and independant of any spell?  If so, it was that (non-supernatural) act that is responsible for the death, rather than the spell.  As an example, if I use magic to knock someone down, then double-tap them to the head with my pistol, this is not lawbreaking.  Yes, I used magic to gain an advantage, but that magic was not present as the mortal soul was ripped free of its housing, and therefore remained untainted.  If I trap someone in magical bindings, then -- while I was sustaining the spell -- cut their throat with a knife, then it becomes a grey area, but I think my magic would be tainted by the act because the act of killing directly involved my magic.  If I used my magic to teleport someone directly above an active volcano, then that spell would be responsible for the death, and my magic would be tainted.

I don't claim that this is The Way It Must Be Done, but it makes sense to me.

[Ochosi]

The Third Law, as described on p. 238, only concerns itself with reading thoughts. No other forms of magical interaction are contemplated in that description.

If a warden wants to kill you, the warden will try to kill you. (I say only "try" because PCs are anomalous badasses and may be tougher than a warden-irritant has any right to be.) The issue is one of power, not justice. The law will mean what the powers that be want it to mean, so if you have an issue with them, you need political power, not justice or understanding.

As for the actual Laws (which I don't think are natural forces at all -- but I digress), the easiest way to settle arguments for us has been to consider intent. It's enthrallment if you intended enthrallment, it's stealing knowledge if you intended to steal knowledge -- this is why a willing subject negates the mens rea of the "Law." The parallel to real life: if a doctor gives you a drug that impairs you but you take it willingly, there is no coercion and therefore no crime. If a policeman arrests you on false charges but sincerely believes that taking you in will be good for you in the long run, that intent would make him criminal. Good intentions do not negate bad intentions, but a complete absence of bad intentions prevents lawbreaking.

To make a completely unexpected analogy that would only be appreciated by a small group of people, it's easiest to handle the issue in games in a way that's similar to Falling in In Nomine. You can slip up from time to time, getting you close, but in the end it takes a conscious act of will to switch teams. And that fulfills my obscure analogy quota for the day.

[Raiden333]

The Third Law, as described on p. 238, only concerns itself with reading thoughts. No other forms of magical interaction are contemplated in that description.

I dunno if this might a case of it being Harry's personal thoughts and not actual canon, but I'm going through the series again right now, and in book 4:

(click to show/hide)

The WalMart is filled with a mind-fog that simply stuns everybody and makes them stand still without causing harm, and Harry says it's still a "clear violation of the laws", if I recall correctly.