Quick and dirty rule: If you in any way compromise someone's free will, chop. So, yeah, inciting emotions would cost you your head. Assume the Wardens make the RIAA/MPAA look like wishy-washy pansies in their zealotry.
Both ways will get you the result one could potentially be construed as a violation of the law.
Not really. Both Harry and the Gate Keeper put people to sleep in TC, the latter pretty aggressively (Harry has to ask for permission to keep Molly from slipping over the side of the Water Beetle and drowning). Now, Harry is a Warden, and the Gate Keeper is senior council, so both probably have more leeway vis a vis the Wardens, but neither is an example of Lawbreaking powers-wise.
I don't think emotional or memory projection would be against the fourth law as you are not controlling the targets mind you are merely adding stimulus (to which they will respond), you are not controlling what they do or how they think they still get to choose how to react to the horrific memories you beam into their head or the awful feelings you project into their minds.
But then I go with a Hobbes view of freedom unless you are actively stopping someone from thinking something or doing something then you aren't breaking the law. (So as long as you don't use mental grapples or force someone to do something you are ok).
Molly adding fear in response to drug use was what landed her Lawbreaker in the first place, so I'm pretty sure you're wrong there.This, I think, is where the system becomes useful. Harry & Co. have to talk in vague terms like suggestion (acceptable) and compulsion (Lawbreaking.) We can talk about maneuvers, blocks, and taken out results. Since the first two can be overcome via fate point expenditure and good rolling respectively they can be considered suggestions, while the latter cannot be overcome once established, so it would be a compulsion.
Being the one to initiate a mental conflict is likely to keep you from going to that hat convention this summer.Agreed. IMO outside of training there's no reason to engage in mental conflict via magic other than trying to rewire someone.
This, I think, is where the system becomes useful. Harry & Co. have to talk in vague terms like suggestion (acceptable) and compulsion (Lawbreaking.) We can talk about maneuvers, blocks, and taken out results. Since the first two can be overcome via fate point expenditure and good rolling respectively they can be considered suggestions, while the latter cannot be overcome once established, so it would be a compulsion.
This, I think, is where the system becomes useful. Harry & Co. have to talk in vague terms like suggestion (acceptable) and compulsion (Lawbreaking.) We can talk about maneuvers, blocks, and taken out results. Since the first two can be overcome via fate point expenditure and good rolling respectively they can be considered suggestions, while the latter cannot be overcome once established, so it would be a compulsion.I'd suggest an extreme consequence would also cross the line to compulsion even if it didn't go on to take the victim out entirely. It makes a fairly permanent change...
Furthermore, all wizards should have the ability to do all things that thaumaturgy and evocation (and their elements I suppose) allow. Unless someone has an aspect (like "not so subtle, still quick to anger") and is being compelled, it should be assumed that all wizards are capable of attacking/maneuvering/blocking with magic. It's not really fair to say that a biomantically focused wizard for example, can't attack, because he can't do it without breaking the second law. Stating that x thing always breaks the law creates this potential limit.
Furthermore, all wizards should have the ability to do all things that thaumaturgy and evocation (and their elements I suppose) allow.
It's not really fair to say that a biomantically focused wizard for example, can't attack, because he can't do it without breaking the second law.
Stating that x thing always breaks the law creates this potential limit.
Generally what I was trying to say that I think you responded to so much wasn't that the players should be able to do everything, but that they should be able to do what their powers say they should, and I think the RAW backs me up on that ("A block is a block is a block" on YS252). Anyone with channeling or evocation should be able to block, attack and maneuver, without the laws getting in the way. And I suppose that creative people will always find a way around them, but it really sucks to have your character handicapped just because you can't think past some arbitrary boundary.
And that's a really tough question polka, simply because when Harry does it (and how Harry does it), it seems perfectly fine (which seems to back up my whole if it can be done in a non-lawbreaking way it should be, unless there's a reason otherwise). I don't see a lot of consistency in the fiction (which is perfectly fine by me) which is why I often try to fuddle these things out for myself rather than relying solely on the books. Much of what I'm going off of is the attitude of "What makes the most fun?" which is going to be different for everyone, and will even be different among members of the same table.
What I'm trying to say is that since a player is only limited by their creativity in this matter, and that a creative player will figure out how to do x without breaking the laws, then is it not ok to assume that everyone can do that regardless of creativity, and then only break the law when they actually want to?
Ok, on the same page now. I actually do have a hard and fast rule about that. Everyone present argues about a use that's questionable. If none of us can come up with a way it can be done without breaking a Law, they get their choice of a take-back or Lawbreaker. If we can and the player is agreeable to the interpretation, that's what they meant and we continue on. It gets everyone involved, even if their character isn't in the scene and it leverages the creative power of X people rather than just one towards a player understanding what their character can do.
Every time the fourth law is brought up, the sleep spell is mentioned.
It is possible to put someone to sleep physically - call it a physical takeout with the right spell. It doesn't have to be done mentally.
Anesthesiologists do it every day, I don't see why an air evocator couldn't by creating the gas. Or a water evocator couldn't by hitting them with ether. Fire, earth, and spirit you're on your own with.
On the Third Law, sinker is right that there doesn't seem much difference between Molly's looking in Luccio's head in TC and the Senior Council's later checking for mental influence. I'd then suggest that this kind of thing isn't "Lawbreaker" against the Laws, but unless you're someone they REALLY trust (Senior Council, high-ranking Warden etc.) the Wardens will get after you.