But in the end you aren't replacing their will with your own. You're causing an effect, but it's still up to them how they choose to deal with that effect. They could choose to ignore the visions. They could choose to find a person to get rid of them. They could choose to go nuts. It's all up to them. To compel is to force a specific action. The statement the book makes is "Here, enthralling is any effort made to change the natural inclinations, choices, and behaviors of another person." That's just not happening here. All of those are still intact and working. While there is a likely response of going nuts, they could do anything.

At a spell strength of 14 this is just not the case. For most mortals there is just no choice of defending because they will never manage to generate the shifts to break the illusion. They are damned to watch and there is nothing they can do about it. How will they find a person to get rid of them? Who will listen to them? They will probably end up in a mental ward classified as schizophrenicly disordered or something, while the nightmare illusion torments them for the rest of their lifes probably driving them insane for real. In a way they are compelled to go insane on their own. Thats making an effort to change someone.

Generally you are right though. That's what I said all along. These might or might not be construed lawbreakers. The problem I had was, that Belial666 categorically stated that they weren't. In my games most of them would be. I think the statement was misleading.

Once again I come to the conclusion that your interpretation of the rules and the general institution of magic in the dresden files universe is incompatible with mine. I'm not looking for yet an other discussion. All I want to say is that you only can state that these curses won't break the laws of magic in games you run. You can't state categorically that these curses don't break the laws, because I bet you dollars for donuts that they will do so at many many gaming tables.

As you said yourself the lawbreaker stunt is linked to the underlining principles of magic. One of these is: don't use your magic to kill. How the killing is done is secondary. That's why the wardens use their swords to execute lawbreakers and not their magic. Holding someone with magic is not killing someone with magic and so on... The wardens are not INTENDING to kill with their magic. That said if you use your curs in a Romeo and Juliet way to just make it look like someone's dead ... no lawbreaker there, you can make sure they wake up before they are cremated or burried alive.

An other one is: don't use your magic to mess with someones mind. Making them think they are insane by the mans of illusions is just that. You violate the mind of an other. It doesn't necessarily have to be directly messing around with someones thoughts. I mean think about it! The third law is partly in place to shield people against the aftereffects of mind magic (insanity, etc.). You are just doing it in a more complex and innovative way with some of your curses.

At least that's how I see it...

The US Army still teaches bacic combat skills with rifles.

I can remember Learning to attack with both sides, Bayonet and Bytt Stock, and to block income attacks.

food for thought

Probably part of the reason why the army also trains its soldiers in maintaining their guns on their own, aye? ... just kidding.

I probably wouldn't compel a player to break his/her gun partly because I think swinging a rifle as a club has something cool about it and partly because I have difficulties seeing where the fun or interest is in it.

Besides: don't we have a nice table for breaking stuff? Couldn't we adapt it to this problem if we have to? Let's just take the Deliberate Hexing Table (YW258). I'd say if you inflict the appropriate amount of stress with the attack the weapon could have a malfunction. For most modern guns that'd be 4 Stress while older ones could go up to 5 Stress because of their heavier sturdier build... But why bother really. Let it come down to narration. If the player decides to narrate it that way, slide him a fate point for troubles to come...

All of a sudden I wonder if the Winter/Summer Knights have to do cleanup duty some times. Literally speaking *g* .

I want one where everything is upside down. *g*

I see it as thematically restricted but not restricted by agenda.  So if you want to use it to help the Summer Court you can, but it will still be Winter themed magic that you're using.

That's kind of what I meant too.

An Example to clarify: Should the Summer Knight with his Seele Magic be allowed to do a tracking spell on just anyone? I'd say probably not. He may do a tracking but only on those who are the vassals of Summer or are Summer bound. Depending on how you look at it, it makes some sense canon wise and restricts the use of the thaumaturgy portion of "Seele Magic" in a way, so that it's not a cheaper but equally potent copy of thaumaturgy.

Opinions?

How about "Pure Mortal Damsel"? It's probably enough for a plot device. Don't over think it if it is just an NPC. It's very likely that nobody else but yourself (GM) will get aware of the exact notation of the aspect.

Think about what defines the character apart from the obvious role in the plot. Make that part of the high concept.

Hey everybody!

Right now I'm pondering over the question what construes "magical affinity". It's only mentioned once in YW169 in the first paragraph of the "Marked by Power" passage.

What does this entail? Is somebody with an average or fair lore skill affine to magic? Do you have to be a supernatural being to sense "Marked by Power"? Do you need wizard senses or is it enough to be a practitioner of some sorts? Are Knights of the Cross magical affine?

You see it can be read as dreadfully inaccurate or you can simply decide that everybody with the slightest connection to the supernatural world will be aware of it. Now: I know that it should come down to what's reasonable in the given situation, but I'm looking for opinions here.