Brain damage: mental or physical?

[Radijs]

My fault perhaps for reasoning from my own knolwedge about strokes.

And I am aware that the brain can adapt and 'heal' that way. This is something that can, depending on the amount of damage take years and most of the time it never fully recovers.
I could go in to greater detail about how the brain adapts by repurposing other 'neural networks' to pick up functions of the parts of the brain that have died.

The way you originally described the question was: "Causing neurons to die or scramble in mass- hell, maybe even use air to cause an embolism- would this be physical or mental damage?"

That really looks like physical damage to me. With mental side effects.

It also strikes me as trying to preform surgery with an axe. You could pinpoint a region of the brain where the damage would be done. And with a good enough medicine roll you could predict the effect in some ways.

But I think I'm more or less inclined to copy Masurao's argument a little ineffectively. So I will just say that I agree with what he said.

[ARedthorn]

No fault there- any given type of brain fault (damage might be a poor choice of words on my part, given my primary examples involved extra wiring in the brain rather than physical damage) will be wildly different in effect, duration and recovery. Strokes are, to my knowledge, some of the worst.
And given that the consequence taken is up to the receiving player, any sort of predicability goes out the window on behalf of the caster (appropriately given the complexity and variation in brains on that detailed a level).
Maybe in event of a maneuver, some detailed control would be possible... But then we're not talking about stress track anymore, and my question becomes moot, so...

[TheMouse]

And, yes, it is a big grey area. Technically, biomancy could circumvent the 4th law by rewiring the brain entirely, but do you think a Warden will care about technicalities when you've just made a man believe he is a rabbit? Whether it is a mind-destroying compulsion, or finely rewired neurons, the intent and effect are the same.

Even then, there's the 2nd Law to worry about. The more convincing your defense against the 4th, the more you are setting yourself up for a head-lopping because of the 2nd. And there isn't a 5th Amendment against Council justice. (Well, you can remain silent. It just doesn't do anything to stop someone with a sword from cutting your noggin' off.)

[sinker]

You seem to have a much harsher definition of the laws than I do mouse. Physically scrambling someone's brain is no different than cutting or burning them. Since we know these other things don't break the 2nd law, it's logical to assume that brain damage doesn't either. You aren't physically transforming them into something that they aren't, you're simply physically effecting them.

[Masurao]

And yet, a lobotomy is nothing more than 'physically cutting', but very much physically and mentally changing them.

[sinker]

I'm not trying to say that any of this is right. That a magic lobotomy is happy fun candy for everyone involved. Just that the laws (That might apply) are do not transform another and do not subvert the will of another. Since we aren't transforming someone into something they aren't (merely effecting their form with physical forces) and we aren't changing their ability to choose (even if their choice is limited by the physical reality of their situation), then we aren't breaking any laws by the universal standard.

Of course a warden could lop your head off anyway, but that's true of many situations in which no law has technically been broken.

[newtinmpls]

Yeah.... brain scrambling via magic. Were I DM that would be reason enough to have permanent consequences from a Warden.

[Sanctaphrax]

The relationship between mind and brain in the context of the Dresden Files is interesting. It might well be different from the real-world one.

if a ghost can function with no biological thinking apparatus at all, then why should a lobotomy even matter?

[TheMouse]

if a ghost can function with no biological thinking apparatus at all, then why should a lobotomy even matter?

The most obvious answer is that a ghost isn't the person is appears to be. It is the footprint to the shoe that the person was.

[Sanctaphrax]

Have you read Ghost Story?

I think it makes the question I asked still relevant in the face of that point.

[noclue]

You seem to have a much harsher definition of the laws than I do mouse. Physically scrambling someone's brain is no different than cutting or burning them. Since we know these other things don't break the 2nd law, it's logical to assume that brain damage doesn't either. You aren't physically transforming them into something that they aren't, you're simply physically effecting them.

Is it okay to reduce them to a vegetative state by frying their brain just enough to knock out upper brain function? I mean they're not dead and they're not enthralled. So, no lawbreaker right?

[ways and means]

Is it okay to reduce them to a vegetative state by frying their brain just enough to knock out upper brain function? I mean they're not dead and they're not enthralled. So, no lawbreaker right?

Ok is a qualatative term the action is amoral but not actual breaking any of the laws of magic just becaus it is nasty dosen't make it illegal.

[Masurao]

Is it okay to reduce them to a vegetative state by frying their brain just enough to knock out upper brain function? I mean they're not dead and they're not enthralled. So, no lawbreaker right?

Ok is a qualatative term the action is amoral but not actual breaking any of the laws of magic just becaus it is nasty dosen't make it illegal.

And yet, I doubt you'll get that to pass as mitigating evidence in a magical court of law your execution Xp

[TheMouse]

Have you read Ghost Story?

I think it makes the question I asked still relevant in the face of that point.

Yes I have. Ghost Story makes it abundantly clear that the stuff that happens is astoundingly rare. So rare that it more or less has no bearing on any conversation not specifically about the events of the story.

[Sanctaphrax]

No matter how uncommon it is, it still has implications that are interesting.

Thought works without a brain. That is relevant to the conversation, I think.