Is it evil to require a magic liscense?

[Talakeal]

Take for example a world like Dragonlance, where all mages are required to join the Order of High Sorcery by third level, and if they refuse are hunted down and killed. Is the Order of High Sorcery evil for doing this?


In my campaign world magic is unpredictable and dangerous. Only those born with magical talent can ever use magic, and learning to control that power requires a life time of study.
Magic is also dangerous. Mages can miscast spells with extremely dangerous and unpredictable results. Even when used properly, an unscrupulous mage can kill with a word, and freely twist other people's minds, bodies, and spirits against their will.
Furthermore, magic is a finite resource, and too much magic use in an area can cause Dead Magic or Wild Magic zones to spring up around them.


As a result magic is outlawed in most kingdoms of the world, and unsanctioned wizards are often hunted down and executed (or in a very few cases imprisoned, few governments have the resources to hold someone who can teleport or go incorporeal captive). To be sanctioned a wizard must belong to a recognized mage's guild, who serve to police their own and are amongst the most ardent hunters of renegade wizard, or be the personal "court wizard" of a nobleman or "miracle worker*" or a church.

Of course, if wizards manage to keep things low key no one will ever know for sure that they are a wizard or have reason to prosecute them. As such most wizards are hermits, witch's living in a hut in the forest, sages studying in a lonely tower, or mystics meditating on a mountain top.

One of my (now ex) players insists that anyone who hunts down and "enslaves" wizards simply for being who they are must be an evil and oppressive government. As a result he refused to work with them, meaning a lot of traditional plot hooks and quests were simply out the window as the player simply refused to work for the guys who are on the side of "order".

Does he have a point? Would a good government really allow individuals who can kill, enslave, rob, rape, and disfigure with a word to walk around unimpeded and unwatched**? Especially when 99.99% of the population has no means of fighting back or resisting?




*: My campaign world doesn't have divine magic as such. Normally divine spells are simply schools of arcane magic.
**: Personally I doubt it. I know I can't even drive a car without a license, and if I ignored the law and did anyways I would be taken to jail, or if I refused to stop end up in a fiery wreck with a lot of property damage and potential lost life at the end of a police chase. And my care is a hell of a lot less dangerous than the things even a mid-level mage can do.

[Almaseti]

Hm. Personally, I think killing them for a first offense is overkill, but if there was a history of magic users killing/enslaving/etc, and non-magic-users really are pretty defenseless, and you have to balance one person's freedom against a bunch of other people's lives/freedom/welfare... yeah, I don't think it's an evil choice. There might not be any GOOD ones, aside from removing the ability to do magic from offenders (which I'm going to assume isn't possible in your world).

On the one hand, one person's freedom to swing their fists ends at the other person's nose, but on the other hand, if they haven't actually swung their fists YET... but then, it's not like you can't be a wizard without being hunted down. It sounds like there are just extra rules and a zero-tolerance policy because of how dangerous and easily-swung this person's fists are.

It also might depend a little bit on how restrictive the guilds are. You implied there are multiple, so presumably there's competition and someone who dislikes one guild can quit and join a different one, or even start their own, as long as they abide by the laws. That doesn't sound wholly unreasonable to me. Not ideal, but as fair as possible under difficult circumstances.

[BWR]

Snarky joke: Depends on if you're American or not.

It is a Law/Chaos question, not a Good/Evil. If a society, either political or magical, decided that magic is too powerful to allow unsupervised training and use, and they want too restrict reality-warpers to make sure they don't misuse it, a very justified and reasonable thing, to my mind, it's certainly not evil.

If it's all about making sure only the people in power have power and ruthlessly crushing any opposition, it is merely another morally neutral tool used for evil purposes.

In the case of the Order, they are not evil in game, certainly, since the White Robes are by defintion servants of Good. What the Order has decided is that rogue magicians are too powerful and too unpredictable to have running around. At least with the Order, you have some sort of idea of who is a threat to the world and what to do about it. Some people like Fistandantilus and Raistlin obviously become too powerful to do anything with, but who knows how many other potential despots the Order has taken control of throughout their time.
And White Robes and to a lesser extent Red Robes try to bring people into the Order and try to capture them alive rather than just killing them outright.

BTW: how's your search for a new group going?

[prufock]

It sounds lawful evil to me, but could be considered lawful neutral at best. They are hunting down people who break the law, and the punishment for the crime is death.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

[Talakeal]

It sounds lawful evil to me, but could be considered lawful neutral at best. They are hunting down people who break the law, and the punishment for the crime is death.

Just for magic or for any law? Because the PHB defines lawful good as mercilessly punishing those who harm or threaten innocents (don't have my book with me for an exact quote), and the BoED explicitly states that it is a good act to kill an evil creature if it will prevent future harm.

Anyway, this isn't a D&D specific question, I more meant evil in a real world sense. Would you consider a government who practiced this to be an "evil empire" or "totalitarian police state".

To keep this away from strolling into a political discussion about the this capital punishment, assume that we are in a medieval system where execution of criminals is the normal response to any serious crime, and could be replaced by whatever other punishments are available if you like.

[Ravens_cry]

The idea in itself? No.
Wanting to know who the people with potentially society destroying abilities are sounds perfectly rational. Think of al the harm a charm person could cause, and that's a first level spell! And even healing can be used to allow the worst kind of torture without leaving a mark.
First offence=death, that's edging into Lawful Evil tyranny though.

[Mewtarthio]

One of my (now ex) players insists that anyone who hunts down and "enslaves" wizards simply for being who they are must be an evil and oppressive government.

What, are wizards an ethnic group? Is wizardry some arcane destiny that certain people are inexorably compelled to pursue? Because if not, this argument is like saying that anyone who requires gun owners to get a license "simply for being who they are" must be an evil and oppressive government. The wizards knew what they were getting into when they cracked open that "Rewriting Reality for Dummies" book.

[Talakeal]

The idea in itself? No.
Wanting to know who the people with potentially society destroying abilities are sounds perfectly rational. Think of al the harm a charm person could cause, and that's a first level spell! And even healing can be used to allow the worst kind of torture without leaving a mark.
First offence=death, that's edging into Lawful Evil tyranny though.

Well, the first offense would be a warning and an invitation to aqcuire some sort of sanction.

It is only a death sentance if someone is willfully practicing unliscensed magic.

[Scow2]

Not at all. No more than a Driver's license, at least.

Then again, you can still drive without a liscense. Just not on public roads. Hmm...

[hamishspence]

What, are wizards an ethnic group? Is wizardry some arcane destiny that certain people are inexorably compelled to pursue?

"Mages" in this case, may mean all arcane spellcasters.

Sorcerers, at least, could be said to be "born magic" with their taking levels being a representation of their growing into it.

[prufock]

Just for magic or for any law? Because the PHB defines lawful good as mercilessly punishing those who harm or threaten innocents (don't have my book with me for an exact quote), and the BoED explicitly states that it is a good act to kill an evil creature if it will prevent future harm.

Are the wizards evil for not obtaining a license? If yes, then the BoED text applies, otherwise it doesn't. "Failing to obtain a license" is not listed in the PHB or anywhere else of which I'm aware as an evil act. It's breaking the law, so it could be a chaotic act. Not getting a license doesn't necessarily make one evil, so killing them is not a good act. Therefore I'm still on the side that hunting them down and executing them is evil, and therefore the organization is evil, or maybe neutral. It's killing nonevil creatures for an oppressive law.

[SowZ]

I think it is evil to require a magic licence, yes. But it is due to my libertarian philosophies not my interpretation of D&D alignments or objective morality. Especially since politics are not a topic here, I won't get into why I would consider it evil. But I consider it evil with a lowercase e, (my own philosophy.) Not a capital E. Meaning while I think it is wrong, I don't think it would show up as evil on a detect evil spell and I think a lawful good god could find such a policy perfectly acceptable.

[Roland St. Jude]

...Anyway, this isn't a D&D specific question, I more meant evil in a real world sense. Would you consider a government who practiced this to be an "evil empire" or "totalitarian police state".

To keep this away from strolling into a political discussion about the this capital punishment, assume that we are in a medieval system where execution of criminals is the normal response to any serious crime, and could be replaced by whatever other punishments are available if you like.

Sheriff: Real world politics is an inappropriate topic here, even when it intersects gaming topics. Discussions of the good/evil of real world governments is plainly out-of-bounds. As the snarky comment about Americans and reference to hunting down ethnic groups show, this gets out of hand quickly when the real world is brought into it. Thread locked.