Evocation can deal Mental Stress Spirit would be an appropriate Element to do it with... but you would have to extra extra extra careful... that way is dark dark grey magic and can very easily cross the line into the black.
And then... Wardens... swords... the usual
I was actually under the impression that the Winter Knight and Summer Knight are out of the purview of the White Council, concerning the laws.
I'd say Mental attacks would be possible with Spirit, with the only problems being the Laws. I have a dark-gray demonic-being with some magic who has one of those for a Rote. Gets around pesky Toughness Powers, just in case. He isn't the best with them, but it helps.
As far as applying the Lawbreaker power, I'd say if they are human, they get it. Even if the White Council can't touch them, a Winter Knight killing with plain ole magic (not sure is the Unseelie Magic counts to Lawbreaker) would still get the power.
As far as applying the Lawbreaker power, I'd say if they are human, they get it. Even if the White Council can't touch them, a Winter Knight killing with plain ole magic (not sure is the Unseelie Magic counts to Lawbreaker) would still get the power.
Shortcuts exist—certain triggers in the
character’s history might allow access to deeper
recesses of the mind. Perhaps the most terrifying
example of this is the mind magic available
to wizards or the mental powers of other
supernatural creatures. Even as total strangers,
these people can instantly strike at the heart
of what makes people who they are, forcing
them to be temporary thralls to the creature’s
will—or worse. (YW 217)
In later and similar situations I might consider to compel the PC to use his mind mojo again as it did him so much good last time, even if it would be a mortal that opposes him (always take a good look on the players FP stack before doing something like this).Shouldn't the PC be compel-able only if he acquires such an Aspect through using his mind magic? Or is the GM unilaterally placing the Aspect on the PC without player approval?
Shouldn't the PC be compel-able only if he acquires such an Aspect through using his mind magic? Or is the GM unilaterally placing the Aspect on the PC without player approval?
I'd argue that there's no need to place an extra aspect on the PC. In my opinion the high concept becomes compellable in this circumstance as it has to have "wizard" somewhere in it. The compel would follow the logic that a wizard, who has once experienced how useful mind magic can be to get rid of an opponent, will be tempted to use it again. It comes down to aspect interpretation and negotiation of the compel.
Anyways. So far i haven't been in a situation where I had the need to compel this way. I'm curious to opinions here, as discussions about if compels like this are valid or not appear frequently at our table, yet I don't want to high jack the thread. Perhaps I'll open an other one for this.
To me it is pretty clear. You can attack the mental stress track directly with magic (like Tsunami stated). The book says so:I saw that section, though it looks to me as though they are talking about psychomancy, which is Thaumaturgical. I don't see any of the Evocation elements that mentions attacks against the mind, and the description of mental combat backs up the feeling that mental combat is generally of the slow, insidious type. WCV powers are a notable exception.
I saw that section, though it looks to me as though they are talking about psychomancy, which is Thaumaturgical. I don't see any of the Evocation elements that mentions attacks against the mind, and the description of mental combat backs up the feeling that mental combat is generally of the slow, insidious type. WCV powers are a notable exception.
Think about Corpstakers mind magic. Thats clearly not thaumaturgie. Think about Mollies manipulation of her friends. I'd classify that as intuitive evocation too, as I doubt she used any links to accomplish it. Psychomancy may (usually) be a part of thaumaturgy, but I think there can be no doubt that the brute force of evocation can do it too.No, Corpsie was using Kemmlerian Necromancy, which allows psychomancy at evocation's speed:
Hm. You know, I think I've been looking at mental damage in the wrong way. I've been seeing it as sort of amind blast type of a thing -- like punching, but mentally -- which would, therefore be great for things like knocking people out without physical trauma. Reading through YS more carefully, I think I'm agreeing with mostlyawake. Mental conflicts are about attacking the target's thought processes, and inflicting consequences that represent a forced change in their mental processes. As such, then all use of magic for mental attacks would be basically a variation on the theme of mind control, and would be a violation when used on people.
It looks as though what I thought of as a mental attack -- the magical sucker-punch to the cranium, thus knocking them out -- would still be a physical attack, doing physical stress, with physical consequences (like "Whanging headache" or "Stunned" or "Concussed" instead of "Profuse Bleeding" or "Broken Leg", but still physical consequences nonetheless).
Hm.
Then again, wouldn't illusions count as a mental maneuver, resulting in an aspect along the lines of "I see purple elephants!"? And the discussion of Harry's love potion makes it sound as though there is some grey area where certain mental manipulation is too minor to count as "enthrallment".
Ok, I thought the mist was clearing, but perhaps not. :p
I'd argue that there's no need to place an extra aspect on the PC. In my opinion the high concept becomes compellable in this circumstance as it has to have "wizard" somewhere in it. The compel would follow the logic that a wizard, who has once experienced how useful mind magic can be to get rid of an opponent, will be tempted to use it again. It comes down to aspect interpretation and negotiation of the compel.But the High Concept has not changed. Thus that compelling that High Concept should be no different before or after using the spell.
Anyways. So far i haven't been in a situation where I had the need to compel this way. I'm curious to opinions here, as discussions about if compels like this are valid or not appear frequently at our table, yet I don't want to high jack the thread. Perhaps I'll open an other one for this.
No, Corpsie was using Kemmlerian Necromancy, which allows psychomancy at evocation's speed:
"In addition, Kemmlerites have shown
varying amounts of ability to exercise necromantic
(page 286) and psychomantic (page 286)
spell effects with evocation’s speed and methods,
coloring such evocations with the alien chill of
death itself."
And I'm pretty sure Molly was using minor Thaumaturgy, but it isn't clear either way (she wouldn't need links if the 'victim' was present).
But the High Concept has not changed. Thus that compelling that High Concept should be no different before or after using the spell.
I just seems wrong to me that just because someone has used the right tool for the job, it changes him in some fundamental though small manner. If the character had a prior Aspect such as "Taking the easier way" or some such, then I think the compel would be justified. But if the character just has "Wizard", I do not think the compel is fair, it just looks like a disguised attempt at compelling the character towards a "Lawbreaker".
I was actually under the impression that the Winter Knight and Summer Knight are out of the purview of the White Council, concerning the laws.
they aren't which is why in my game one of the PCs is the winter knight and a full blown necromancer this still causes a great deal of friction between him and the warden in the group
I think everything relevant here is actually under the section about the Unseelie Accords in Our World. It talks about how supernatural organizations are expected and required to police their own so that wars don't start, and that disagreements are why things like Accorded Neutral Ground and the Code Duello exist.
Oh right ... I forgot about that. No link needed is also true. So my examples are not dead on, yet the other part of my post stands. I still think mental stress through evocation is implied, but probably only the brute force is possible you'd use to create rough thralls...Creating thralls is a good example. There is one place where hard rules on creating thralls is laid out: the rules for Domination (YS172). Using Domination, it takes a day to create a Renfield, and three days to create an enhanced Renfield. This assumes that you've got your victim completely at your mercy and that you've spent two (or four for enhanced) refresh on a dedicated power. While I don't claim that mortal magic is incapable of duplicating this effect (the material clearly implies that it can) I think that at the very least, the time would be in line with the dedicated power, which should be *better* at doing so than a more generic power.
. 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.
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!
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).
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).
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.
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!
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.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 Third Law, as described on p. 238, only concerns itself with reading thoughts. No other forms of magical interaction are contemplated in that description.