Laws against using magic?

[Ointhedwarf]

I'm currently running a campaign in which a very large portion of the population can use some form of magic, usually small elemental magic, light and so on. How would such a world treat magic usage? Destructive magic or illusion/evocation magic could easily affect its citizens so it would make sense for there to be some kind of law against it. How serious would the offenses be? For the destruction I would think of it as carrying a gun, more serious magic should be declared officially before usage and any dangerous behavior should be treated accordingly. But what about charming? What's the fine for charm or suggestion?

[DigoDragon]

Do certain spell schools require a license to practice legally?

Minor offenses probably carry the common fine-n-jail-time punishment. If this is classic fantasy setting, perhaps severe magic criminals have their tongues cut out or a hand crippled to make spellcasting with Verbal and Somatic components extra difficult. A more modern society might have developed devices that hinder or stop individuals from casing while in jail (or if under house arrest?).

[goto124]

What is the purpose of this? Verisimilitude? World-building? To encourage a low-magic setting, or at least more careful use of magic? What system is this, DnD (since it affects what sort of magic exists to begin with)?

[Aetol]

For the destruction I would think of it as carrying a gun

What do you mean exactly ? Guns are regarded very differently depending on the country.

[Ointhedwarf]

This is a dnd campaign. You could maybe say it was about worldbuilding but I was also curious how other DMs handle illusionist players. I don't want to restrict the player's actions but logic says that charming a shop-keeper for a better price or a guard to let you go is an offence. On the other hand, in a society where everyone can do a bit of magic, like the campaign setting (it is actually an elder-scrolls setting), the law would be more lenient than those of harry potter-esque setting where wizards are hiding. In mage city I'm planning to introduce later on you may even be free to use any spell as long as it doesn't harm the other, it falls on the recipient's skill to resist it.
What would you consider as logical fines/penalties for basic spells like charm person, suggestion etc.?

[JeenLeen]

For most places, I would consider it as parallel to a mundane crime.
Charm magic or other magical compulsion to get a better deal = extortion or other illegal means to get a unfair deal
Destructive use of magic = vandalizing property, destruction of property, murder, etc., depending on the effect
Edit/Clarification: I'd have the punishment fit the equivalent punishment for a mundane crime, maybe a little heavier if the society distrusts mages in general

Though, for some towns, the fact that a magic-user is doing this as opposed to a thug might make law enforcement (or the peasants) afraid to do anything, but in a metropolis I reckon there'd be adequate law enforcement. At the least, though, ill use of magical compulsion or emotional manipulation could get the party a bad reputation, assuming word spreads around and it's used for selfish means; using it to escape prison to do heroic deeds wouldn't hurt the reputation amongst most, but using it to charm a shopkeep or 'persuade' people to obey you in dangerous tasks would have villagers shunning you or running from you.

I imagine most towns wouldn't have being a mage illegal (at least due to enforcement reasons), though some might, but many might have a "no spellcasting in public" laws like they might have "no dueling / no random brawls".

In mage city I'm planning to introduce later on you may even be free to use any spell as long as it doesn't harm the other, it falls on the recipient's skill to resist it.

This sounds like a cool idea, and a reasonable law that powerful archmages would put in to oppress the weaker mages and mundanes. Maybe you don't want that level of oppression/elitism, but it seems to flow naturally from that law and likely be the reason it was established.

[Segev]

If magic is so common as to be something that a plurality of the population performs, it is unlikely that laws would exist against "magic" in general. Laws generally try to proscribe specific behaviors, at least outside of tyrannies. (Tyrannies can often be characterized by the fact that merely existing is a crime unless specific prescribed behaviors are engaged in to justify/permit your existence.)

So using charm person to cheat somebody out of a fair price would, in fact, be a crime, probably lumped together with other forms of con atristry or fraud, or possibly with robbery. If considered a form of robbery, it may or may not be considered "armed," based on whether the legal system in question looks at it as "increasing danger for the target" or as "increasing likelihood of the target being coerced."

Similarly, there may not be laws against knowing fireball, but probably there are laws against casting it in town, just as there might be laws against indiscriminate firing of a crossbow in town.

Illusions used to entertain and which don't disrupt life probably aren't crimes. Illusions that disrupt traffic or cause accidents or injury probably are crimes not for being illusions, but for being reckless, dangerous acts which (could) cause injury or property damage.

[goto124]

Also, what about methods to detect the use of magic to cheat/kill/etc?

[Nerd-o-rama]

You wouldn't generally outlaw a very common ability unless you're in an oppressive police state. What magic might do is "enhance" crimes committed with it in the eyes of the law. In America, at least, there's the concept of "assault" being a lesser crime than "assault with a deadly weapon" and "robbery" being a lesser crime than "armed robbery". Utilizing magic in the pursuit of things which are otherwise illegal might receive a harsher punishment than the crime would have if performed mundanely, because magic results in a higher risk, if not actuality, of harm to others.

That covers intentional magical crimes. To avoid accidents and attempt (attempt) to avoid a-hole Tippy Wizards trying to take over the planet, there might be a system of licensing to enforce and regulate larger-scale magic. In D&D, you could need an ever-escalating system of licenses (and oversight) to cast each new level of spell effects legally - and an ever-escalating system of punishment for casting them illegally, up to the magical equivalent of counterterrorism squads if you're throwing around Gates outside of regulated research facilities.

[Temperjoke]

It's probably best to think about magic as another tool that both potential criminals and regular citizens would have. Someone attempting to use a Charm spell to get a better deal or steal an item would be going against the defenses a shop keeper would have, and would probably be viewed like shoplifting. Now, if magic were less common, it'd probably be more regulated, because it's far easier to regulate usage in a smaller population, than in a world that almost everyone had a little bit of magic.

[Geddy2112]

It would probably boil down to what the law considered a hostile act, or how the magic is used. I doubt using cure light wounds would ever be considered threatening, but slinging illusion in the street could be. General recklessness with magic would probably draw negative attention.

If a charm fails to work, the target generally knows something is up, and if everyone has some basic magic power and knowledge, they might be able to identify the spell, or at least the school. Enchantment can be charms, but it can also be compulsions which are basically mind control. A guard who knows you tried to enchant him might not know it was charm person and think it is murderous command instead. Charms don't ensure success, they just ensure favor. A charmed merchant might take offense that you tried to get a discount by magic, and consider it a threat to their business. So, it would likely be a hostile and illegal act. Trying to rip people off using magic? Fraud?

Also, what constitutes as "harm" is a bit subjective. Most "harmless" spells explicitly state that they are harmless, other spells can generally be considered hostile, particularly if they allow a save. Some spells, like summoning, are neither. A wizard summoning a mount to ride about town is pretty normal, but randomly summoning a fire elemental in a tavern would probably be seen as hostile.

So, magic that is considered hostile or harmful is probably illegal, as is using magic(even beneficial) to commit a crime.

In addition, magic used to commit or aid in committing a crime would probably carry a harsher penalty than the crime itself.

[Temperjoke]

It would probably boil down to what the law considered a hostile act, or how the magic is used. I doubt using cure light wounds would ever be considered threatening...

"You, a cleric, attempted to force your religious beliefs on me when you used Cure Light Wounds on me!"

[The Fury]

Yeah, it would make sense that in a setting where casters are common, a legal system would probably just regard magic as another tool that criminals might use. Using Burning Hands carelessly could be considered arson or destruction of property, using Magic Missile on some poor sap minding his or her own business could be called assault etc. I imagine that casting on its own wouldn't be considered criminal or even suspect though. Largely because anyone that sees a character cast would have some chance of knowing what they're casting, and there are several legit uses for magic in general.

In contrast, in a setting where casters aren't very common, most people wouldn't have any way of knowing whether someone is casting Comprehend Languages or Fireball. So in that case it would make sense that casting in public would be banned

[Necroticplague]

I don't see why magic would need laws specifically against it. The wrong things you can do with magic, you could do by mundane means. Dominating someone into sleeping with you is just as much rape as threatening them. Raising a skeleton without their (or their family's) permission is desecrating a body. No reason to make the use of magic a part of it. Of course, you'd need some countermeasures against them using magic while in prison (otherwise you could end up doing the equivalent of letting an armed prisoner in).

[AceOfFools]

The general approach I used in my urban fantasy setting is to define "using magic to a complies an illegal crime is legally equivalent to acomplishing the same effect without magic." Blasting people with fire would be assault with a deadly weapon, using illusions to impersonate someone would be identity theft.

The exception was magic to gain influence over another's mind, which itself is a crime (called malfeance), as a person's dominion over their own person is pretty fundemental to [modern American] law. "Enchantment" features mandatory jail time on the order of years, because to most people the idea that another can enter your mind and take control of you,forcing you to do things against your will, is fairly abhorrent.

Granted, most judges would allow an affirmative defense in case of enchantment used in self defense, but the situation hasn't come up, yet.

[Segev]

Regarding mind-control, including special mentions of effects which, while never listed as such, are effectively charm-like, are discussed interestingly in a blog called "Law and the Multiverse." You'll have to search its archives for appropriate articles, though. It mostly focuses on superheroes and how they'd interact with the law, but it also delves into fantasy and some sci-fi.

Of perhaps particular note is the idea that a charm-like effect (the example used is a love potion) would essentialy be equivalent to date-rape, if used to seduce somebody who would otherwise have refused. But it also addresses culpability issues, whether you have mens rea if you perform a crime while mind controlled, and whether it makes a difference whether it's a domination-like effect vs. a charm-like one. The reason there's a discussion there stems from the difference between being magically convinced to do something you might not normally do, but could still have refused on ethical grounds (such as if you ask a charmed person to rob or kill for you), vs. literally being unable to control your own body and mind and doing something as a tool for another (as would happen with a dominate-like effect).

[VoxRationis]

You're looking at this from the point of view of a modern, centralized state with a clearly established (and detail-oriented) code of law, but a lot of places probably would take a more flexible approach: making a magical crime fit a more mundane charge, or just having a policy of "you use magic to harm us, we burn you at the stake." I think the laws most likely to come about specifically relating to magic would be to the effect of "only the court wizard (or other sanctioned magic-user) can cast spells in the presence of the king."

[Temperjoke]

"She only claimed that I used Charm on her because she got in trouble with her parents. I heard you can resist that sort of thing if you didn't actually want it."
"Sir, she's only level 1, you're level 10, she's got a penalty to her saving rolls."
"...I want to talk to my Pact patron."

--------------------------

Magic works for the law too. "Sir, we're going to need you to submit to a Zone of Truth spell."

"Your honor, my client's testimony was coerced via the Geas spell, and is therefore inadmissible in court."

[TheIronGolem]

Another point to consider is that laws regarding magic may well be made not according to what's "right" or "safe", but according to the best interest of whoever's in charge.

For example, in a city-state ruled by a council that includes the head of the Mage's Guild, it might be illegal for non-guild-members to make or sell magic items, even innocuous ones like talking toys.

Religion and/or superstition can be a factor as well, even beyond the obvious applications like "Our favorite god doesn't like undead, so no necromancy". For example, in a kingdom in my homebrew setting, people are especially superstitious about storms and lightning in particular (lighting being seen as the equivalent of hellfire). Cast lightning bolt or shocking grasp there, even to defend innocents from bad guys, and you may find yourself on the wrong side of the law pretty quick.

[Jay R]

Nobody cares how you do something if what you do is good, and if it isn't, nobody cares how you do it.

Rescuing somebody from a well is equally good whether you use a rope or levitation. Stealing is bad whether you pick a pocket or teleport its contents.

[Aetol]

Nobody cares how you do something if what you do is good, and if it isn't, nobody cares how you do it.

Rescuing somebody from a well is equally good whether you use a rope or levitation. Stealing is bad whether you pick a pocket or teleport its contents.

Of course, but there are things that are only possible with magic : necromancy and mind control have already been brought up. You'd need laws for that too.

[LibraryOgre]

I would say that a world where magic is so common would tend to look to results moreso than means, except when those means were exceptional. So, if you used your innate Magic Missile power to kill someone, it's the same as if you used your innate "stab someone with a knife" power. However, they might treat some offenses, not possible with physical means, differently... Charm might have a specific place in law with regards to robbery or scams, and certain kinds of magic (blood magic rituals, for example) might warrant special notice.

[kieza]

I'm currently running a campaign in which a very large portion of the population can use some form of magic, usually small elemental magic, light and so on. How would such a world treat magic usage? Destructive magic or illusion/evocation magic could easily affect its citizens so it would make sense for there to be some kind of law against it. How serious would the offenses be? For the destruction I would think of it as carrying a gun, more serious magic should be declared officially before usage and any dangerous behavior should be treated accordingly. But what about charming? What's the fine for charm or suggestion?

Most bad things you can do with magic can be equated to a mundane crime, especially when magic is a known and expected facet of the world. Arson using burning hands should carry the same penalty as arson using a flask of oil. Assault using magic missile should be treated similarly to assault with a deadly weapon.

That said, there are dangerous things you can do with magic, that have no direct mundane equivalent:
--Raising self-replicating undead, which might get loose.
--Dealing with demons, which might get loose.
--Using mind-altering magic, which could have unintended consequences even if done for the best reasons.
--Scrying on someone, which is an invasion of their privacy.

So this kind of magic would probably require a license or certification to be done legally. That has interesting implications for the party--maybe they use scrying to track down a known villain, but because they don't have a certification, the evidence is inadmissible in court. Or they bind and banish a demon, which gets them in trouble with the law because they should have waited for a certified demonologist who could make sure it worked.

I've got this idea for a city-watch campaign, where the players are watchmen and they have to deal with things like getting a warrant to put a suspect in a circle of truth, or gathering testimony from a murder victim using speak with dead, only for it to be suppressed because it was against the victim's religion to do so. Or being accused of excessive force and having an antimagic field cast on them for the duration of the investigation.

[veti]

I would imagine there would be widely different attitudes between different communities.

In one city, Charming a random stranger may be considered OK if all you want is some help lifting a heavy object, but not if you're trying to sleep with them. In another city, it might be seen as a routine part of social interaction and nothing to get excited about. In yet another, there might be a blanket ban on all mind-affecting spells and a city-wide alarm system designed to drop anti-magic bombs whenever one is cast. In a very unequal society, it would be OK for higher social orders to Charm their inferiors, but not vice-versa.

And so on. This is very much a setting-dependent question - there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

[Aetol]

Charming a random stranger may be considered OK if all you want is some help lifting a heavy object...

Commandeering random people to do your menial work is OK ? Really ?

[veti]

Commandeering random people to do your menial work is OK ? Really ?

I don't say it's "OK". If I were running the town, it'd be the one with the blanket ban on use of mind-influencing magic in public. But in case you didn't manage to read any more of my post than the bit you quoted, let me say it again:

Different places and different societies will have different rules.

OK?

[Aetol]

I don't say it's "OK". If I were running the town, it'd be the one with the blanket ban on use of mind-influencing magic in public. But in case you didn't manage to read any more of my post than the bit you quoted, let me say it again:

Different places and different societies will have different rules.

OK?

I don't know, screwing with someone's free will seem like something that would be a universal taboo...

[ExLibrisMortis]

Charm person targets someone and allows a save; glibness, that one warlock invocation and Naberius (the rushed diplomacy option) do not. A combination of (some of) the latter three can mostly duplicate charm, and would most likely be legal, because it's entirely caster-side.

[Milo v3]

I don't know, screwing with someone's free will seem like something that would be a universal taboo...

I've had a strength focused culture treat mind-control as "if you succumbed to it, you were obviously far too weak-minded." and they saw it no different than simply being a very manipulative person.

[Jay R]

Commandeering random people to do your menial work is OK ? Really ?

In a medieval world with serfs and/or slaves? Probably.