The Dark Arts: What magic is socially unacceptable?

[Xervous]

In the course of expanding and defining my campaign setting, I've come to the topic of what magic is considered unfit for use by civilized persons. Now everyone and their grandmother knows the typical society will outright reject necromancy (as in all things undead)), however I feel the need to tack on a few more spell categories to this list of Taboo Magic to maintain verisimilitude.

Many spells of the Enchantment school immediately cry out to me, altering people's moods, opinions, and often robbing them of free will.

Beyond this I'm sure I'll find specific instances of spells that would be lumped into the Dark Arts, however I know one mind is less than many. So playground, your suggestions thoughts and opinions are being solicited.

Also:

As always, I keep finding that in my eagerness for an answer, I rush my posts and end up with something slightly less clear than I desired (or realize in hindsight that the answers I am receiving are because of this)

I shall rephrase this to "what would be considered dark arts for the somewhat stereotypical western medieval low to middling magic setting"
and

In attempting to label the devil, I have unwittingly drawn out his advocates...

I am halfway to abandoning any hope of a decent overall list, seeing how dependent everything is on the nuances of the particular society in question.

Or perhaps I shall just revise it into a list of definite offenders and a second of potential candidates...

New idea for a list: spell categories that are likely to have a society opposed to their use // inclined to place limits upon in a campaign setting. Sort of a compilation of all the wonderful ideas here.


X alignment tag people who are the opposite of X alignment.
Compulsion effects Societies valuing free will (as a general case)
Charm effects As above
Illusion effects Societies that dislike such deceptions as the respective illusion spells permit
Lethal, destructive, disruptive spells Limited or banned based on potential and the specific culture. Note that this can be a very narrow category or a very broad category depending on your setting
Such spells that are not already contained in above categories Who knows why people might object to some spells?

[CTrees]

I'd suggest anything with the [evil] tag, for starters.

[KillianHawkeye]

I would say that Baleful Polymorph falls into this category as well, and probably Stone to Flesh and other similar spells.

After that, you need to establish other categories, such as spells that have no use outside of destruction being limited to licensed government agents. And spells that are normally okay to use but which can be put towards an unacceptable purpose, like using Scrying to spy on the ladies bathroom or Ethereal Jaunt to rob a bank vault.

[Psyren]

And spells that are normally okay to use but which can be put towards an unacceptable purpose, like using Scrying to spy on the ladies bathroom or Ethereal Jaunt to rob a bank vault.

This is a good point - I could see lots of divinations being outlawed in a society that values privacy and confidentiality.

[Pally din]

Make magic users liable for property damage, both inside and outside of cities. This tends to make fire a bad thing.

Killing should result in murder investigations, to determine if it was justified self defense.

Magic aided theft, should probably carry a stiffer penalty.

[Ardantis]

Don't forget illusions higher than cantrips- most of them are based on baldfaced lies, although I'd say they'd be more opposed in a fearful, xenophobic society than in a private, well-governed one.

[Ravens_cry]

Messing with memories would be a big no-no most likely. Some spells might be less socially acceptable in some cultures. For example, spells that contact the outer planes could be considered blasphemous in some cultures.

[hamishspence]

I'd suggest anything with the [evil] tag, for starters.

Excepting Deathwatch, which even the "falls if it commits an evil act" Healer gets.

[Telonius]

Some Necromancy spells are involved with fighting undead. (Disrupt Undead, for example).

I'd also carve out a specific exception for Deathwatch, which shouldn't have the [Evil] tag in the first place. I mean, really, Good Clerics aren't allowed to know what to triage?

Some spells that would have a fairly high possibility of collateral damage would probably be frowned on. Cloudkill is the first one that comes to mind, but there are probably a lot more like it.

Trap the Soul is another one that seems like most civilized folks wouldn't like it.

[Xervous]

Mainly what I wanted here was to get a good comprehensive list of what spells are unacceptable in all applications for one reason or another while excluding spells that simply "have no purpose beyond destruction" // "can be used in horrible ways". The former would be taboo while the latter would be restricted, like firearms and the locations of security cameras.

Although, it wouldn't be a bad idea to work on a list of the restricted spells alongside the Dark Arts

[Shadowknight12]

Enchantment and Necromancy are right out, as are [Evil] spells.

Unsanctioned used of Dispel Magic, Greater Dispel Magic and Mage's Disjunction should carry a penalty. You can't have spellcasters undoing protections, magic items or other spells, whether private or government-owned.

All of Evocation (except for Contingency, Wall of Force and the like) is right out. Nobody likes being set on fire, frozen, electrocuted, deafened or dipped in acid. Most of Conjuration(Creation) falls under this as well.

Chaotic societies might have the same issues with [Lawful] spells as they do with [Evil] spells, and the same might be true with lawful societies and [Chaotic] spells.

Conjuration(Summoning) and Conjuration(Calling) spells sound troublesome, even if used to invoke celestial creatures. They would probably be banned or heavily regulated as well.

Some tyrannical societies that heavily monitor their populace (like Big Brother) might ban spells such as Nondetection and Undetectable Alignment, as they interfere with government vigilance. Those societies might also flat-out ban any unsanctioned Abjurations, as they wouldn't want their government spellcasters to face excessive resistance.

Illusion might also be banned, as they can both deceive the government (big no no) or cause accidents within the populace. They might be misdemeanours, though spells like Phantasmal Killer and Weird might fall under "death magic" like most of the Necromancy.

As mentioned above, Divinations might be banned by privacy-conscious societies, and might actually have complex city-wide Alarm-based traps, which incorporate Detect Scrying and (Greater) Arcane Sight in order to notify the authorities of unlawful Divinations.

A lot of Transmutation is actually quite ghastly. Things like Flesh to Stone, Disintegrate, Baleful Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object and the like would fall under the aforementioned Evocation heading. Debuffs such as Slow might fall under misdemeanours. Environment-affecting spells, such as Transmute Mud to Rock might cause terrible accidents when used carelessly. Spells like Shapechange and Polymorph might cause city-wide panic if the caster transforms into a monster. The whole school, however, is so varied and diverse that you can find different reasons to ban most of it.

It really depends on the society you want to build. A lawful, Big Brother type of society would ban most things, but also harmless schools like Abjuration and Illusion because they would hamper the government's ability to spy and control its populace. A chaotic society, on the other hand, might allow a great deal of magic but ban things like Divination because they violate privacy. Some societies might be more concerned with spells that have flashy effects and might cause a panic, or with spells that might cause accidents and property damage/accidental deaths. Some societies might be highly religious and ban things on philosophical grounds, such as a society that follows a god who has a thing against all of the Conjuration school (even the teleportation and the creation, but not the healing, which belongs in Necromancy anyway).

It really depends on the kind of society you want to build.

[Gnorman]

"Civilized" does not necessarily equate with "good."

Spells with the evil tag and those that involved necromancy or the creation of undead could theoretically, in some cases, be used to progress civilization. Just think of all the free labor you could come up with in a largely agrarian society.

And what government police force wouldn't want to use Speak with Dead to help solve murders?

[Douglas]

Dark Arts

All Compulsion effects
Most or all Charm effects

I'd swap these. I expect the reason for listing them here in the first place is "messing with minds is bad", in which case any distinction should be on whether the mind-screwing is the goal or the means. Charm effects universally have influencing someone's mind as the goal of the spell; therefore they should all be "bad" without exception. Many Compulsion effects also are designed specifically to mess with people's minds, but some merely use the mind as a means to an entirely different and much more acceptable end. For example, no one casts Hold Person with the goal of altering someone's mind; the spell just happens to accomplish its real goal - temporary paralysis - by means of affecting the mind.

[Shadowknight12]

"Civilized" does not necessarily equate with "good."

Spells with the evil tag and those that involved necromancy or the creation of undead could theoretically, in some cases, be used to progress civilization. Just think of all the free labor you could come up with in a largely agrarian society.

And what government police force wouldn't want to use Speak with Dead to help solve murders?

Oh, of course, I would completely agree. I just didn't want to waste my time arguing for the Good-aligned uses of Necromancy when the OP seemed to have a more traditional view on the matter.

My personal take on this is that every society decides what the "dark arts" are, and there are no spells that are universally considered "dark magic".

[Xervous]

As always, I keep finding that in my eagerness for an answer, I rush my posts and end up with something slightly less clear than I desired (or realize in hindsight that the answers I am receiving are because of this)

I shall rephrase this to "what would be considered dark arts for the somewhat stereotypical western medieval low to middling magic setting"

[Shadowknight12]

I shall rephrase this to "what would be considered dark arts for the somewhat stereotypical western medieval low to middling magic setting"

You do realise that even within that highly specific setting, societies do vary in outlook, right? There is no right answer to that question. Even in the most stereotypical of settings, you can still argue for one society who thinks all offensive spells are dark arts and one who thinks that only Necromancy and [Evil] spells are dark arts.

Hell, some settings have all arcane magic be "dark arts" while non-evil divine magic is a-okay, even if it belongs to the Necromancy school (such as the clerical Slay Living).

[Xervous]

In attempting to label the devil, I have unwittingly drawn out his advocates...

I am halfway to abandoning any hope of a decent overall list, seeing how dependent everything is on the nuances of the particular society in question.

Or perhaps I shall just revise it into a list of definite offenders and a second of potential candidates...

[Shadowknight12]

seeing how dependent everything is on the nuances of the particular society in question.

This, right here.

There is no single, objective, standard answer for your query, just like there is no single, objective, standard society for all of the standard fantasy settings ever.

[Need_A_Life]

Well, it should flow naturally from the rest of the culture.

For example, in the Eberron setting the nation of Karrnath makes good use of undead, because the nation found themselves in a tight spot and were facing invasion; a quick institution of a new state religion and they had themselves an undead army. Distasteful? Sure, but acts of desperation tend to have that feel anyway.

In a fantasy setting drawing more on medieval Europe undead soldiers might well be crossing a line society is not willing to cross. Maybe all magic, even ("It's of the devil!" and whatnot).

So I see it as a balance between what is permissible by culture and religion in the society in question balanced against how useful it is.
Mind-affecting spells? Probably something restricted in even the most permissive societies, but being able to completely reform even the most heinous criminal in 6 seconds? Maybe this society finds that sufficiently useful to not spend too much time pondering the ethical problems.

[Ashtagon]

There is no single list of "dark art" spells. Every society has nuances. Consider the following:


Suitable for civilian use (kitchen knives, cantrip)
Suitable for licensed use (handguns in the USA, hold person)
Suitable for police use (water cannon, tasers, zone of truth)
Suitable for military use (M1A1, chain lightning)
Black ops only, officially banned (torture, trap the soul)

[Shadowknight12]

There is no single list of "dark art" spells. Every society has nuances. Consider the following:


Suitable for civilian use (kitchen knives, cantrip)
Suitable for licensed use (handguns in the USA, hold person)
Suitable for police use (water cannon, tasers, zone of truth)
Suitable for military use (M1A1, chain lightning)
Black ops only, officially banned (torture, trap the soul)


This is an excellent idea and I'm cribbing it for future use. Thank you!

[Shining Wrath]

Any spell that is "mind-affecting" is a candidate. Those listed as "compulsion" are almost certainly going to be regarded as bad.

In many cultures, Divination is going to be unpopular. If some people know who's going to win the big race tomorrow and bet accordingly, while most people don't have access to that kind of magic, hard feelings will result. Stalking people is not going to be allowed in most places.

Any spell that makes it hard to be an honest businessman (transmutation, summoning) will be frowned upon.

[Scow2]

Even "Destructive" spells aren't socially unacceptable to use. You just can't use them to nonsanctioned ends. Self-defence is sanctioned - as long as there is no collateral damage (No Fireball against a single assailant in the middle of a crowd).

Why the heck would Divinations be socially unacceptable? Well, maybe privacy-invasive divinations like Scry and Clairaudience/Clairvoyance - but only if they're used in unacceptable ways (Such as voyeurism). Scrying to check on someone is probably not illegal/unacceptable. Divinations that have little function outside of combat aren't worth restricting - using the spell to inappropriate ends is the problem. Augery, Divination, and Legend Lore are not only socially acceptable, but also highly encouraged. The Detect spells aren't criminal either, but any crimes someone commits while acting on that information is still a crime (No, paladin's can't "Detect+Smite" without provocation. They can still Detect, though)

[Eldan]

Depends heavily on the society. I could see a LE-LN society that used enchantment. Say, Dominate Person on criminals and defaulters, so they can work until they have paid their debts back without needing guards or prisons.

We also have an example in OotS: Mark of Justice on Belkar. I could see a society using Geas like that.

Necromancy too. The Dustmen use it, and they aren't necessarily evil. The concept of a society using zombies as cheap labour isn't uncommon.

[Shadowknight12]

We also have an example in OotS: Mark of Justice on Belkar.

That's Necromancy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/markOfJustice.htm), ironically. :smallamused:

[Phelix-Mu]

I shall rephrase this to "what would be considered dark arts for the somewhat stereotypical western medieval low to middling magic setting"

All magic that is any less tame then the light of god or a better sword would be viewed with suspicion. Remember, in a stereotypical medieval setting, fear of the unknown really dominated the lives of most of the population. Thus, even if the rulers only specifically outlaw certain magics, the commoners go all lynch mob on people suspected of witchcraft. The local lords and officials usually don't stop the mobs, because it's more effort than it's worth, and fearful people are easier to control.

Depending on prevailing religion, necromancy, or even interest in necromancy would be viewed as very big taboo (like executable for suspicion). Likewise, anything dealing with summoning would be taboo (since where are these creatures coming from? crowd: "THE DARK ONE."...oh, right, so I guess we have to hang this guy). Anything with weird manifestations, chanting, colored lights...in fact, pretty much anything could be construed as witchcraft, allying with dark powers, unnatural, burn him, etc, etc.

I think you get the picture.

Remember, in the real world (with no actual magic) people were routinely subjected to all manner of torture and execution over accusations of using magic/being unnatural/ungodly. If magic really does exist, but is not more broadly understood, then I see no reason for the fear to not be even greater.

In short, don't spell cast in public.

[Gnorman]

All magic that is any less tame then the light of god or a better sword would be viewed with suspicion. Remember, in a stereotypical medieval setting, fear of the unknown really dominated the lives of most of the population. Thus, even if the rulers only specifically outlaw certain magics, the commoners go all lynch mob on people suspected of witchcraft. The local lords and officials usually don't stop the mobs, because it's more effort than it's worth, and fearful people are easier to control.

Depending on prevailing religion, necromancy, or even interest in necromancy would be viewed as very big taboo (like executable for suspicion). Likewise, anything dealing with summoning would be taboo (since where are these creatures coming from? crowd: "THE DARK ONE."...oh, right, so I guess we have to hang this guy). Anything with weird manifestations, chanting, colored lights...in fact, pretty much anything could be construed as witchcraft, allying with dark powers, unnatural, burn him, etc, etc.

I think you get the picture.

Remember, in the real world (with no actual magic) people were routinely subjected to all manner of torture and execution over accusations of using magic/being unnatural/ungodly. If magic really does exist, but is not more broadly understood, then I see no reason for the fear to not be even greater.

In short, don't spell cast in public.

If magic was actually real, and part of society, something tells me it'd be more understood, not less.

[Shadowknight12]

If magic was actually real, and part of society, something tells me it'd be more understood, not less.

For all people back then knew, magic was actually real and part of society. If a priest or saint healed you/came back to life/walked on water/unspoiled food/etc, it was a miracle or divine intervention, not magic. Magic was witchcraft and therefore Bad. Burn the witch and all that.

The key, I imagine, would be early detection of wizards and sorcerers before they reached high enough level that they could wipe the floor with an entire kingdom.

Wizards and sorcerers from levels 1 to 4 might be fearsome, yes, but their spell slots are limited and eventually you can throw enough commoners/warriors at them that they will get overwhelmed and die. Even the high-op ones. And if this became a common occurrence, I wouldn't be surprised if kingdoms didn't have a special order of divine spellcasters or melee warriors with special PrCs that made them professional anti-spellcasters (much like Templars in Thedas).

Never underestimate the power of fear.

[Phelix-Mu]

If magic was actually real, and part of society, something tells me it'd be more understood, not less.

Mmm, because society always accepts the truth.

The key was the OP saying he's going for the faux medieval flavor of classic D&D setting. Any semblance of the people in medieval Europe can not have normal people that just see spellcasters and are like "eh, whatever." (and go back to playing fruit ninja on their i-phones).

The different, the unusual, the bizarre, it scares normal people (in-game). Magic is pretty much all of this, even if it is real. The OP also implied some manifestation of a low magic world. So it is supposed to be rare.

Imagine it's like science back in the 17th and 18th centuries. Yes, it's real, but nobody believes the scientists, everyone thinks they're nuts, and a fair number think it's the work of Satan. The sheep don't care what is real, they just want everything to fit within the narrative in which they are playing a part, hence my reference to the nature of the prevalent religion.

[Arcanist]

Mmm, because society always accepts the truth.

I'd like to point out that Germs are still only a Theory along with Gravity and the Atom :smallannoyed:


Imagine it's like science back in the 17th and 18th centuries. Yes, it's real, but nobody believes the scientists, everyone thinks they're nuts, and a fair number think it's the work of Satan. The sheep don't care what is real, they just want everything to fit within the narrative in which they are playing a part, hence my reference to the nature of the prevalent religion.

Precisely. Magic is often perceived as strange and an alien concept to Carl the Commoner so it would be reasonable for him to fear it and not understand it. Most people in D&D are, ironically enough, not like D&D players in that if they found out that magic was real they wouldn't react the same way we would.

I'm sure most D&D players would react generally the same in the response of "Oh god, I will now retrain those levels of Commoner into Wizard levels." where as a simple Commoner would react "NOPE! Power of the Goat, kill it with Silver Fire."

[ArcturusV]

You know, I'd think most Abjurations would fit in the Socially Unacceptable category, though I don't think it's been mentioned. I know most people would think that kinda odd, as most Abjurations are framed up as being "protections".

But as a pure nuisance factor? Alarms, Hold Portal, Arcane Lock, etc, just gets worse from there. But also in a very dangerous way too, when you start talking about things like Dispel magic, Explosive Runes, Fire Trap, etc.

Basically a vast majority of the school is either going to be Annoyingly Harmful, or Very Dangerous/Harmful. There's a very small selection of spells that are neither like Break Enchantment, sure. But for the most part? I can't imagine Abjurers are typically welcome.

[Shadowknight12]

You know, I'd think most Abjurations would fit in the Socially Unacceptable category, though I don't think it's been mentioned. I know most people would think that kinda odd, as most Abjurations are framed up as being "protections".

But as a pure nuisance factor? Alarms, Hold Portal, Arcane Lock, etc, just gets worse from there. But also in a very dangerous way too, when you start talking about things like Dispel magic, Explosive Runes, Fire Trap, etc.

Basically a vast majority of the school is either going to be Annoyingly Harmful, or Very Dangerous/Harmful. There's a very small selection of spells that are neither like Break Enchantment, sure. But for the most part? I can't imagine Abjurers are typically welcome.

Yeah, I mentioned Abjurations before. I like the idea of Abjurations being the tools of the chaotic resistance movement that opposes the oppressively lawful Big Brother government that uses Divinations, Enchantments, Evocations and other magical ways to keep its population under an iron fist.

[8wGremlin]

The thing that gets me about D&D is that societies blatant disregard magic.

Take for instance the lowly Gnome. Any Gnome with a CHA or 10 has access to; speak with animals, dancing lights, ghost sound, prestidigitation. even with the default non-heroic stats, every single Gnome starts with 10 cha.

Their society is inherently magical, and those spells would have a marked effect upon society as a whole. Any Carl the commoner who has ever met a gnome knows that they can do arcane tricks, so why is magic considered unknown or mystical, it seems to be as common as being able to whistle.

[Malroth]

Mind blank and protection spells are evil, and the self repeating mindrape trap is your friend.

[Karnith]

[...]the self repeating mindrape trap is your friend.
No, Big Brother is your friend. Your only friend. Having friends other than Big Brother is thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime is punishable by re-education.

Remember, Big Brother is watching you.

So, yeah, mindrape, programmed amnesia, and the like are probably verboten for most societies (unless the authorities are the ones doing it).

[INoKnowNames]

I'm very much surprised that the ability to bring the living back from the dead doesn't strike anyone as remotely taboo. From a video game standpoint, it's nothing, but from a social/moral standpoint based on our own mortalities, religious view non-withstanding, being able to choose who stays dead and who doesn't is... well, questionable.

[Karnith]

I'm very much surprised that the ability to bring the living back from the dead doesn't strike anyone as remotely taboo. From a video game standpoint, it's nothing, but from a social/moral standpoint based on our own mortalities, religious view non-withstanding, being able to choose who stays dead and who doesn't is... well, questionable.
Well, with basically every resurrection spell that I'm aware of, the dead soul gets to choose whether or not they want to come back. So at least it's not so bad on one end.

The other side of it is still unsettling, though.

[Scow2]

I'm very much surprised that the ability to bring the living back from the dead doesn't strike anyone as remotely taboo. From a video game standpoint, it's nothing, but from a social/moral standpoint based on our own mortalities, religious view non-withstanding, being able to choose who stays dead and who doesn't is... well, questionable.

It's also only granted through the direct intervention of the voice of a Diety. If God says "This guy can come back", who the hell do you think you are to argue?

On that note, most D&D settings have a large "Good" church worshiped in human lands (Usually lawful, but Neutral Good in Greyhawk/Default D&D Campaign Setting), and that has the most influence on how the 'common people' perceive magic, which leads me to address this quote.

I'm sure most D&D players would react generally the same in the response of "Oh god, I will now retrain those levels of Commoner into Wizard levels." where as a simple Commoner would react "NOPE! Power of the Goat, kill it with Silver Fire."
Power of the Goat? What Goat? This viewpoint only works if the God of Magic is Evil, or at least in opposition to The Big Church, if you want to match historical precedent - the discussion of which is not allowed on this forum.

But, in D&D, the religions aren't as antagonistic toward each other as they were in Medieval Europe, and very few are against 'witchcraft'. Fun fact: Grammar and Glamour share the same etymology.

[INoKnowNames]

It's also only granted through the direct intervention of the voice of a Diety. If God says "This guy can come back", who the hell do you think you are to argue?

I'm sure there are ways to cast such spells or similar without requiring a Deity. Heck, Clerics of causes or Healers, and certain prestige classes, can access such spells without worrying about Gods.

[Shadowknight12]

Mind blank and protection spells are evil, and the self repeating mindrape trap is your friend.

This is absolutely beautiful. A standing ovation for you, good sir.

[Phelix-Mu]

No, Big Brother is your friend. Your only friend. Having friends other than Big Brother is thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime is punishable by re-education.

Remember, Big Brother is watching you.

So, yeah, mindrape, programmed amnesia, and the like are probably verboten for most societies (unless the authorities are the ones doing it).

Ah, thoughtcrime, doublethink, unperson...it was a special time in my youth.

I elect Karnith for best post of the thread. For the good of the Party.

[Arcanist]

Power of the Goat? What Goat? This viewpoint only works if the God of Magic is Evil, or at least in opposition to The Big Church, if you want to match historical precedent - the discussion of which is not allowed on this forum.

Fill the goat in with any Demon Lord or Lord of Hell. It does not have to be "The Goat". Magic does not have to be Evil for it to be persecuted, it simply must be lightly understood like or teach something contrary to "The Big Church", however as you said this type of discussion is not allowed on this forum.


But, in D&D, the religions aren't as antagonistic toward each other as they were in Medieval Europe, and very few are against 'witchcraft'.

Lets actually pretend I made a reference to Medieval Europe and not just RW commoners (with our culture still intact, just magic added) Vs D&D commoners. Our Culture, for the most part, has developed in a way where we persecute people who are different in some way, shape or form whether that be in their beliefs, practices, race, etc.

This is dangerously approaching "religious talk." If you have anything more, just PM it to me and we can discuss it more privately.


Fun fact: Grammar and Glamour share the same etymology.

I'm legitimately curious why you felt to bring this up :smalltongue:

[Darius Kane]

Blue Magic.

[laeZ1]

There is no single list of "dark art" spells. Every society has nuances. Consider the following:


Suitable for civilian use (kitchen knives, cantrip)
Suitable for licensed use (handguns in the USA, hold person)
Suitable for police use (water cannon, tasers, zone of truth)
Suitable for military use (M1A1, chain lightning)
Black ops only, officially banned (torture, trap the soul)


This stood out to me. I give it a plus.

[XmonkTad]

There is no single list of "dark art" spells. Every society has nuances. Consider the following:


Suitable for civilian use (kitchen knives, cantrip)
Suitable for licensed use (handguns in the USA, hold person)
Suitable for police use (water cannon, tasers, zone of truth)
Suitable for military use (M1A1, chain lightning)
Black ops only, officially banned (torture, trap the soul)


While I really like this idea it leaves out one thing: What about the ruling class? Are the leaders magic folk or did they only take levels in aristocrat? Someone has to be giving those black ops guys their orders and training.

In general, if we assume that the churches have sub-state level political/military power, magic will probably work something like this.

Otherwise, arcane vs divine will probably be an issue (unless the church in question is wee jas). Even to a commoner, a wizard and a cleric look and cast very differently.

[Venger]

One big one that I haven't seen mentioned much is spells that will allow you to turn into other people.

Not just polymorph for combat junk, but even spells like disguise self, alter self, etc to turn into another human. This is the kind of thing people would use to commit confidence games and identity theft. It's also the kind of spell that government agents would use with impunity to sneak around the abjuration-using resistance and dispel their mind blanks.

[Ashtagon]

While I really like this idea it leaves out one thing: What about the ruling class? Are the leaders magic folk or did they only take levels in aristocrat? Someone has to be giving those black ops guys their orders and training.

In general, if we assume that the churches have sub-state level political/military power, magic will probably work something like this.

Otherwise, arcane vs divine will probably be an issue (unless the church in question is wee jas). Even to a commoner, a wizard and a cleric look and cast very differently.

That was a bit of a simplification, and the examples do assume that the spells in question are actually accessible. If trap the soul isn't available to the rulers, it's a bit like asking what the legality of a haste spell is in modern USA.

The key point is, different kinds of magic would be legal for different groups of people. A medieval peasant would probably be quite happy to receive a cure spell from a sanctioned (ie socially accepted; somewhere between "police" and "licence" on my earlier scheme) cleric, but would reel in horror at the idea of receiving that same spell from a cleric who did not have official permission to operate.

[Xervous]

I was just thinking how ironic it would be for a special magi force to exist that specializes in detaining magi who use spells unlawfully, by using those spells lawfully...

[Zaq]

Very little of the magic you see in the PHB (and to a strong extent, other books too) is especially useful for a non-adventuring lifestyle. There's actually quite little that makes the average person's life easier or more comfortable. It's all about breaking into people's homes to kill them and take their stuff dungeon-crawling and adventuring. This makes sense, since the rulebooks are more concerned with, well, the rules of a fantasy adventure game (emphasis on the adventure) than of presenting a fleshed-out and believable world.

I would actually believe that most magic you see in the rulebooks would be considered unacceptable in polite society, because polite society doesn't assume that you're going to have 3 to 6 fights to the death in a given day, and the bulk of the spells available to players do work on just such an assumption. The few that aren't specifically for fighting are mostly things that aren't very necessary in an everyday environment. You've got exceptions, of course . . . Tenser's Floating Disk has plenty of uses, everyone wants Remove Disease, and few people would turn down Endure Elements in the right (or wrong) season. But overall, the rulebooks aren't going to offer a lot of magic that Joe Commoner will find too necessary or useful.

This is unsupported by RAW, but I would venture that there are actually many more spells out there than are available in the rulebooks, and these spells are far more, for lack of a better term, mundane in their application than the "adventuring spells" we're so familiar with are. To use a slightly clumsy analogy, these more civilized spells would be more comparable to kitchen knives. I've got a whole bunch of unique knives in my kitchen right now, each one suited to a particular set of purposes. There are people out there with fancier and more impressive kitchen knives, and I regard those with respect—but I would be downright alarmed if someone walked into my kitchen with a giant combat knife (the kind people get all worked up over at gun shows and the like) or a switchblade or something and started using it to chop an onion. I'm envisioning these "city mages" (for lack of a better term) looking at their adventuring cousins (and their adventuring spells) with a mixture of respect and disgust. Some might be totally repelled by the vulgar adventuring spells, some might be somewhat intrigued, but very few of them would regard them as practical to just have around you all the time. Some people are repelled by hardcore combat knives, some people are intrigued by them, but hardly anyone thinks it's appropriate to just have them around you as you go about your business every day (and we often think of the people who DO think such things are appropriate as being kind of weird).

D&D doesn't have rules for the spells these non-adventuring mages use for the same reason it doesn't have rules for the ten different kinds of knives I have in my kitchen (despite having plenty of rules for the kinds of blades you stick in things you want to kill). It's not part of what an adventurer is expected to be concerned with. And while a paring knife may be perfect for what it's intended to do, if I were to get into an actual knife fight with one (against someone who had and knew how to use an actual combat knife), it'd be nearly useless. Same thing with these non-adventuring spells. I assume that they exist for the same reason that I assume that D&D chefs don't use the same daggers to cut steaks that the Rogue uses to cut throats . . . and I don't think that most adventuring spells would be looked on kindly in polite society.

[NichG]

Rather than try to give a universal answer, I will simply posit a specific example society and what it finds objectionable and how it deals with it:

Society details:

Knightsbridge is a city that was born in war, grew up with intrigue and nobility, and has since passed on to merchants and the emerging middle class. It was founded initially as a citadel to hold a strategically important bridge separating the holdings of two dukes who were fierce rivals. Over time the population grew, and when the family line of one of the dukes ended, the other duke acquired the lands and moved his seat of rule to Knightsbridge. The Eastern side has always been more wild, with bandits and creatures sometimes coming from the thick forests there, but still Knightsbridge stood. Over time, the king and his court were seen frequently in Knightsbridge, though that ended eventually with a peasant rebellion.

Now Knightsbridge is mostly controlled by merchants who use the river for trade, although it is still officially in the hands of the original duchy that fought over it.

The primary religion in the area is the worship of the Four, a pantheon of four gods who are strongly moral and positive in their nature. They have a corresponding set of four evil gods who oppose them, whose worship is strictly banned. The gods have portfolios:

- Order, Law, and Justice
- Building, Crafts, and Commerce
- Love, Hearth, Home, and Growth
- Revelation, Knowledge, and Death

The evil gods have:

- Torment, Pain, Disease
- Corruption, Deals, Temptation
- Hatred, Vengeance, Lust
- Mysteries, Lies, Thievery


Okay, given that specific example, I'd say the following would have a special place in their laws:

- Fire spells are strictly regulated. Light one house on fire and the city could go up.
- Spellcasters with deadly magic are required to register, and are basically considered to be armed 100% of the time.
- Low-end summons are okay, but Planar Binding and the like is forbidden. Either its heretical (forcing an angel to serve you) or its opening a door to evil.
- Necromancy to the extent of raising undead is banned, but things like Speak with Dead are okay. However, they are mostly used by the city's law enforcement - a common person with Speak with Dead at the ready would be seen as someone suspicious, since most people aren't going to be dealing with corpses they didn't make. Inflict/etc spells are no different than a sword.
- Conjurations that create permanent materials are banned due to the merchants not wanting the bottom to fall out of the iron and salt markets. Its considered equivalent to counterfeiting currency.
- Enchantments are 'officially' banned, but enchanters are actually in high demand amongst the nobility and the merchant elite. Enchanters might be used to seal a deal and make both sides really agree to it, and enchantments might be used by law enforcement to reform criminals and put them to use without a flight risk.
- I don't see anyone having a problem with Abjurations in this society. Probably the most popular school, with Divination coming up second.
- Public use of illusions is considered a nuisance, but not a 'dark art'.
- There's a bias against Transmutations amongst the lower classes - they remember too many monsters attacking the city, and think that Transmutation is pretty close to the Corruption attributed to one of the evil quartet. Officially, transmuting oneself is allowed but transmuting others is an assault.
- Spells that influence weather or fertility on a large scale are banned - too many lives in one person's hands, even if it could have positive results used right.

Edit:
- Silent Spell and Still Spell metamagics are considered assassins' tools.
- Knock is banned, though not considered a dark art. Just a spell with too many illegal uses and not enough legal ones.
- Spells that create or cause disease or poison are considered Dark Arts.
- Spells that are specifically for torture are considered Dark Arts due to the pain deity, though mundane torture is probably used by law enforcement regularly.

[Shadowknight12]

One big one that I haven't seen mentioned much is spells that will allow you to turn into other people.

Not just polymorph for combat junk, but even spells like disguise self, alter self, etc to turn into another human. This is the kind of thing people would use to commit confidence games and identity theft. It's also the kind of spell that government agents would use with impunity to sneak around the abjuration-using resistance and dispel their mind blanks.

Well, the LE government has to fight the CG resistance somehow! I'm all for that, especially since the government would also be using abjurations to prevent the divinations that would see through their ruse, so it would make the resistance even more paranoid than Girard and Ian's hypothetical lovechild.


*snip*

You, sir, are full of win.

That's pretty much the way I handle it in my campaign. There are plenty of spells for anything under the sun (and most people end up taking spellcaster levels at some point).

The only thing I'll disagree with is the part were "people see combat-spell-using mages distastefully." I can assure you that you have a very modern view on the matter. Raise the odds of being attacked to a certain point (whether by crime, government oppression, raids, war or anything else) and you will have every spellcaster taking combat spells regardless of their affiliation, just in case.

The higher the crime/war/oppression/etc in an area is, the higher the odds you'll find ordinary people with guns and combat knives under their pillows.

EDIT:


*snip*

This is how you do it right.

[Zaq]

You, sir, are full of win.

That's pretty much the way I handle it in my campaign. There are plenty of spells for anything under the sun (and most people end up taking spellcaster levels at some point).

The only thing I'll disagree with is the part were "people see combat-spell-using mages distastefully." I can assure you that you have a very modern view on the matter. Raise the odds of being attacked to a certain point (whether by crime, government oppression, raids, war or anything else) and you will have every spellcaster taking combat spells regardless of their affiliation, just in case.

The higher the crime/war/oppression/etc in an area is, the higher the odds you'll find ordinary people with guns and combat knives under their pillows.


While I can respect what you're saying here, don't forget that every combat spell prepared is a useful, everyday spell that you're not preparing. (Spontaneous casters have it even worse.) If you're not truly expecting to bust out, say, Glitterdust before you go to bed, then keeping Glitterdust prepped is a relatively large opportunity cost, especially if we assume that most of these hypothetical city mages are relatively low level and probably don't have a huge number of slots. A real-world chef isn't giving anything up by keeping a switchblade on his person, but a city mage is definitely doing so by prepping or learning combat spells instead of normal spells. It'd be one thing if he had heard that a crime wave was on the loose, or if he had to go to a shadier part of town on some errand and didn't feel comfortable, but for general use? I don't think the opportunity cost makes sense.

Now, keeping a scroll handy, just in case? That's something I can absolutely see.

[Shadowknight12]

While I can respect what you're saying here, don't forget that every combat spell prepared is a useful, everyday spell that you're not preparing. (Spontaneous casters have it even worse.) If you're not truly expecting to bust out, say, Glitterdust before you go to bed, then keeping Glitterdust prepped is a relatively large opportunity cost, especially if we assume that most of these hypothetical city mages are relatively low level and probably don't have a huge number of slots. A real-world chef isn't giving anything up by keeping a switchblade on his person, but a city mage is definitely doing so by prepping or learning combat spells instead of normal spells. It'd be one thing if he had heard that a crime wave was on the loose, or if he had to go to a shadier part of town on some errand and didn't feel comfortable, but for general use? I don't think the opportunity cost makes sense.

Now, keeping a scroll handy, just in case? That's something I can absolutely see.

Point taken, though I think it depends on the setting. I think that in a place where crime is an everyday matter (due to corrupt authorities, a la Greysky City... which reminds me a lot of where I live, to be honest), combat spells would be part and parcel of any city spellcaster (even the spontaneous ones). Of course, it all really boils down to what kind of spell. Hold Person sounds fairly innocuous, but it's very easy to protect against and doesn't do much to permanently neutralise the threat. Magic Missile might be the best 1st level damage spell, but all it does is deal force damage, which has a limited application. Mage Armour? Expeditious Retreat? Grease? Web? Summon Monster? Alarm?

It would be fascinating to see what kind of spells city mages prioritise when it comes to protecting themselves from crime and raids, or during times of war.

[NichG]

Really, Dimension Door, Invisibility, and other escape spells make more sense for the average wizard living in a dangerous city. A single offense spell won't necessarily kill or disable the enemy - they could make their save, they could have more than 15hp, etc. A single Dimension Door will pretty much end any encounter with a mugger or thug. An Invisibility lasts a long time and its really hard for low level mundanes to thwart - just walk home invisible and no worries! That way you're only really burning one slot for self-defense, which is probably reasonable precautions even for a non-adventuring 'city wizard'.

[Clistenes]

I once tried to create a system in which magic wasn't dependant on class, but on a chain of feats, each with its own Int, Wis and Character level requirements (but some classes would grant bonus magic feats).

Each chain would grant access to a kind of magic, and in that world each kind of magic would be associated to a proffesion (nothing prevented you to learn different kinds of magic, but people tends to focus on one to get access to the higher level spells faster).

Healers - Focused on healing magic, respected so much as low nobility.

Abjurers- Focused on spells that protect against harmful magic, respected so much as knights (the respect for them is directly dependant on the menace of evil spellcasters, however).

Astrologers - Focused on divinations, respected as bourgeois and skilled proffesionals (scribes, lawyers....etc.).

Illusionists - Focused on illusions, respected as skilled entertainers (that is, like bards).

Aeromancers - Focused on weather, air, ice, mist and water manipulation, they aren't too respected (like commoners), but they are feared, so people thread carefully around them and are polite to them. They are offered huge rewards for their valuable services, but sometimes they are considered suspect of provoking catastrophes and are persecuted.

Pyromancers (focused on fire magic) and Enchanters (mind-controllers) are considered evil, and are persecuted, but not so much as hexers, necromancers and demon summoners.

Hexers (focus on non-elemental harmful magic), Necromancers and Demon Summoners are considered evil and killed when discovered.


Most people ignores that high-level healers can use hexes, or that high level illusionists can kill with their spells.

[Lans]

Truenaming- It may get harder and harder to hurt things of your level, but commoners are always DC 15.

[Coidzor]

Fill the goat in with any Demon Lord or Lord of Hell. It does not have to be "The Goat". Magic does not have to be Evil for it to be persecuted, it simply must be lightly understood like or teach something contrary to "The Big Church", however as you said this type of discussion is not allowed on this forum.

However, faith by its nature causes clerics to exist, either due to the deities in question themselves or due to the devotion of people to whatever ideal or cause. It becomes difficult to justify a societal persecution of all magic when every religion is pumping out clerics who use said magic in keeping with their religion's tenets. Helping the harvest, healing the sick, those aren't the kinds of things people stick their noses up at unless they've already been given a powerful incentive not to and given it's the divine itself that such acts stem from, religions are not an avenue whereby magic may be banned.

"The Big Church" has magic and is using it, and so at most they can decry other people using magic, but that's not magic in general.

[ArcturusV]

Well, other than a few feats/items/PrCs, the definition between Divine Magic and Arcane Magic is flimsy at best as far as we consider it, rules wise, as players. A cleric's spellcasting is functionally just like a Wizard's. What is the difference between a Cleric casting Summon Monster X, and a Wizard casting Summon Monster X? Other than Arcane Spell Failure due to armor, nada, as far as we are concerned.

But inside the game's world. It's probably viewed as very different. I doubt the average person (Or even Magic User) considers Divine spellcasting and Arcane Spellcasting as the same thing. They might recognize that a Wizard and a Cleric might cast the same spell, but they do it by very different means.

In short, I can see that people and churches/temples in DnD might go against "magic" even as they use "magic" to pop off miracles. Because the cleric magic isn't "Magic" it's "Divine Miracles". Even though mechanically they are just about as same as same can be.

[Shadowknight12]

"The Big Church" has magic and is using it, and so at most they can decry other people using magic, but that's not magic in general.

"The Big Church" can decree that its clerics are not using magic, but calling for divine intercession, and that the results of their incantations are the manifested will of their god.

And then they can decry all of magic in general.

This works best when people with Spellcraft ranks can tell that the Dispel Magic or Protection From Evil cast by a cleric is exactly the same as the one cast by a wizard.

Delicious, delicious hypocrisy.

EDIT:

It's even better when The Big Church is confronted by this fact, and goes "Why do you have ranks in Spellcraft? What interest do you have in the Dark Arts? WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!"

[Coidzor]

Well, other than a few feats/items/PrCs, the definition between Divine Magic and Arcane Magic is flimsy at best as far as we consider it, rules wise, as players. A cleric's spellcasting is functionally just like a Wizard's. What is the difference between a Cleric casting Summon Monster X, and a Wizard casting Summon Monster X? Other than Arcane Spell Failure due to armor, nada, as far as we are concerned.

But inside the game's world. It's probably viewed as very different. I doubt the average person (Or even Magic User) considers Divine spellcasting and Arcane Spellcasting as the same thing. They might recognize that a Wizard and a Cleric might cast the same spell, but they do it by very different means.

In short, I can see that people and churches/temples in DnD might go against "magic" even as they use "magic" to pop off miracles. Because the cleric magic isn't "Magic" it's "Divine Miracles". Even though mechanically they are just about as same as same can be.

Well, except for the fact that they know the difference and know that they're lying, gross hypocrisy and lying and so on and they're going to slide in alignment and you'll have neutral religions at best, which works for some settings, sure, but is a fly in the ointment for others.


"The Big Church" can decree that its clerics are not using magic, but calling for divine intercession, and that the results of their incantations are the manifested will of their god.

And then they can decry all of magic in general.

This works best when people with Spellcraft ranks can tell that the Dispel Magic or Protection From Evil cast by a cleric is exactly the same as the one cast by a wizard.

Delicious, delicious hypocrisy.

EDIT:

It's even better when The Big Church is confronted by this fact, and goes "Why do you have ranks in Spellcraft? What interest do you have in the Dark Arts? WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!"

A house of cards at best, barring an evil state, evil deity, and evil religion. So very niche, but granted.


While I can respect what you're saying here, don't forget that every combat spell prepared is a useful, everyday spell that you're not preparing. (Spontaneous casters have it even worse.) If you're not truly expecting to bust out, say, Glitterdust before you go to bed, then keeping Glitterdust prepped is a relatively large opportunity cost, especially if we assume that most of these hypothetical city mages are relatively low level and probably don't have a huge number of slots. A real-world chef isn't giving anything up by keeping a switchblade on his person, but a city mage is definitely doing so by prepping or learning combat spells instead of normal spells. It'd be one thing if he had heard that a crime wave was on the loose, or if he had to go to a shadier part of town on some errand and didn't feel comfortable, but for general use? I don't think the opportunity cost makes sense.

Now, keeping a scroll handy, just in case? That's something I can absolutely see.

How often do you see people as burning through all of their spell slots past levels so low they're barely people? :smallconfused: Even a soft city mage, assuming a magical tradition completely divorced from that which produces the mages of war, adventuring, and law enforcement; isn't going to need to prepare all of his or her spell slots and is more likely to be leaving slots unfilled so that they can bring them to bear to a specific task. Setting aside a paltry number of slots as a safety precaution isn't even up to the same scale as having a conceal-carry permit.

There are abominations that hunt magic-users simply for the joy of hunting magic users, and indeed, they prefer non-adventurer prey because it's easier to go to where someone lives than to hunt down murder hobos. There are murder hobos and dark wizards who gank other spellcasters for the lulz/magical loot/knowledge.

[Shadowknight12]

{scrubbed}

[Coidzor]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Requiring the state to kowtow to the big religion & the non-dominant religions to acquiesce with the truth being completely squashed, everyone in the big religion who is a caster and knows better to keep mum for generations, the deity to be OK with flagrant lying & hypocrisy & murder, there's many, many points of failure here, and your tone doesn't cover that.

Nor can you smugly allude to any historical precedent.

So please. Explain yourself.

[ArcturusV]

How do they know they are lying, or would be sliding in alignment?

I mean there are clear differences between what Divine Magic does, and what Arcane magic does. While spells like "Detect Magic" might pop up as Magic. What makes the fact that "Detect Magic" pops means it's necessarily "Magic"?

I mean, there is differences they could use to justify it. Arcane Spell Failure and the differences in Spell Research/Acquisition are the obvious places to draw the line. If a Wizard researches some way to copy a Cleric's spell (Possible after all, and they do share spells occasionally), the Wizard's spell is limited by the limits of arcane magic. The need to study a book, the limited spread of it's knowledge, the Arcane Spell Failure still applies, etc.

Where as divine magic is shared. If a spell is researched, it's made available to all followers. How it is cast is different, and considering Divine Focuses are used, and each faith would have it's own divine focus, it's also fairly unique in it's flavoring. A cleric of Pelor and a Cleric of Ehlonna would both cast a spell in a different manner, with different tools. As opposed to arcane magic where any wizard casting a particular spell will cast it with the same methods and tools (Not counting for Metamagic and other feats to negate components).

[Shadowknight12]

Requiring the state to kowtow to the big religion & the non-dominant religions to acquiesce with the truth being completely squashed, everyone in the big religion who is a caster and knows better to keep mum for generations, the deity to be OK with flagrant lying & hypocrisy & murder, there's many, many points of failure here, and your tone doesn't cover that.

Nor can you smugly allude to any historical precedent.

So please. Explain yourself.


Requiring the state to kowtow to the big religion/non-dominant religions: this needs no explanation. This is a given in any standard medieval setting.
Everyone in the big religion who is a caster and knows better to keep mum: why would the casters take ranks in Spellcraft? It's heresy. So they don't take ranks and are therefore blissfully unaware.
The deity be OK with flagrant lying, hypocrisy and murder: plenty of good-aligned deities are okay with killing bad people for the greater good. Also, it's not lying or hypocrisy if you don't actually know that you're a hypocritical liar. See my point above about not having ranks in Spellcraft.


Do tell me, please, how unlikely or niche any of this is. I'm listening with rapturous attention. :smallwink:

[Coidzor]

Requiring the state to kowtow to the big religion/non-dominant religions: this needs no explanation. This is a given in any standard medieval setting.

If the game is being played in Europe, A.D. 1300 with the serial numbers filed off and no sense of history, sure. :smallconfused:

Otherwise it's going to be more complicated than that.


Everyone in the big religion who is a caster and knows better to keep mum: why would the casters take ranks in Spellcraft? It's heresy. So they don't take ranks and are therefore blissfully unaware.

They'd still know from how they prepare spells, this argument hinges too much on a very narrow interpretation of the skills system.


The deity be OK with flagrant lying, hypocrisy and murder: plenty of good-aligned deities are okay with killing bad people for the greater good. Also, it's not lying or hypocrisy if you don't actually know that you're a hypocritical liar. See my point above about not having ranks in Spellcraft.


It's lying and hypocrisy because someone who knows is setting it up in the first place. Killing someone who isn't bad in the name of the greater good is worse than killing someone for purely amoral reasons.

Also you're assuming a completely silent deity or one who is OK with it.

[Shadowknight12]

If the game is being played in Europe, A.D. 1300 with the serial numbers filed off and no sense of history, sure. :smallconfused:

Otherwise it's going to be more complicated than that.

Not necessarily. The Dark Ages well called such for a reason, and the Renaissance/Enlightenment were also called that for a reason. The reason was about knowledge. During the Dark Ages, knowledge was very scarce, and only safeguarded in a handful of specific locations. I do not find it hard to imagine that a standard fantasy medieval setting would have a widely ignorant populace and a very powerful head church.

Remember that this topic began with the discussion of the "Dark Arts" which specifically covered more than the spells with the [Evil] descriptor, so we're obviously not speaking of a society with any degree of magical knowledge.


They'd still know from how they prepare spells, this argument hinges too much on a very narrow interpretation of the skills system.

How would they know, exactly? Praying to Heironeous in the morning to infuse the priest with the divine will to smite the heathens, glimpse the future, provide food to the starving or heal the wounded could cover plenty of different spells without breaking the illusion that it's the deity that's doing all the work. They needn't even be specific at all. They could just fill their spell slots with the same spells over and over every day, spend all day casting them, and still believe it was all Heironeous's doing.


It's lying and hypocrisy because someone who knows is setting it up in the first place. Killing someone who isn't bad in the name of the greater good is worse than killing someone for purely amoral reasons.

Also you're assuming a completely silent deity or one who is OK with it.

How do you know that someone knows the truth? Self-delusion can go all the way up to the deity itself.

Also, you're not getting the church's rationale: if anyone who casts (arcane) magic is evil, and you have proof that someone can cast (arcane) magic, killing them is an act of good, for it prevents them from corrupting the peasantry or unleashing terrible horrors upon the populace. Sure, the kindest of them might be into redemption instead, but the principle is the same: if your deity tells you that (arcane) magic is evil and its casters are evil, you can justify a lot of things in the name of the greater good.

Obviously, these aren't my personal thoughts, I'm just illustrating how a good-aligned church might maintain such a hilariously hypocritical creed for a long, long time (until the Renaissance-equivalent, at least, where the rebirth of knowledge and science would shed light over the nature of magic and expose the church's flawed beliefs).

[otakumick]

Pelor would likely love to have his followers in power and denouncing the evils of truth and love... I mean arcane magic...



of course Pelor is The Burning Hate

[TuggyNE]

The Dark Ages well called such for a reason

So they were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29). Unfortunately, that reason is now usually considered to have been misguided, and the alleged lack of knowledge much less significant than popularly supposed.

Edit: Hmm, we seem to be veering off. Suffice it to say that neither the very cynical nor the very optimistic views are necessarily accurate or useful here, and focus less on any potential parallels, eh?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This thread could do with less smug condescension and needling.

[Threadnaught]

The real question the OP should be asking is "what magic isn't offensive to any culture?"

Seriously, Necromancy isn't the most accepted type of magic at the best of times. Allignment restrictions for certain cultures limit which types of spells you're allowed to cast before being branded a criminal who must be killed.

In fact, aren't there cultures in which no magic may be cast by certain races/classes (not that kind) or anyone at all?


What magic is unacceptable depends entirely on the cultures of the campaign setting and the location of the players within said setting. To list all spells that would be offensive to someone, would be akin to listing opinions that are offensive to specific people. Except of course, it wouldn't be classed as trolling.