Ethics of Magic

[Talaysen]

Hey all -

There's been a discussion lately on one of the pagan lists I'm on regarding magical ethics, and for some reason I started thinking of D&D.

In most neopagan traditions, it is considered unethical to use magic to harm someone or control their thoughts/actions. This is a broad law and open to interpretation, but (for example) love spells in the traditional sense (i.e. I will make you love me) are taboo because of it. Well, mileage varies, obviously, and this isn't the case with all traditions - but most of my friends follow that standard. If "charm person" existed in the real world they almost certainly wouldn't use it, nor would they ever use "magic missile".

That said, this concept is a relatively new one, and far from universal. In societies in which magic is a part of everyday life, spells that harm others are very common. In an anthropology class a couple years ago, my prof actually touched upon an account of a village shaman trying to use a spell to slaughter *all the children* of a rival village in revenge for some insult or offensive act. It is reasonable to assume that ancient and medieval Western spellcasters would have laughed at any ethical guidelines resembling the ones common to neopaganism today.

On the other hand, personal morality may also apply. For example, I am not affiliated with any pagan traditions containing guidelines similar to what I've described, but I still avoid harmful or controlling spells out of a sense of personal morality. I personally believe too strongly in the sanctity of free will and sentient life.

All right, this has gone far enough into real-world practice, but I thought I'd set this up with a few examples from our planet's cultures. Within the vast continuum of D&D games, I can think of very few examples of magical ethics. In fact, the only thing that springs immediately to mind is the system described and established in Sepulchrave's Wyre game - wizards are barred from participating in political conflicts (i.e. wars), but only to a point; wizards may not summon extraplanars into Wyre or send them therein once summoned elsewhere; wizards may not attack each other; etc. (I may be misremembering some of this.) And, really, this is more of a legal code than anything else - there is no Grand Order of Wizards saying that it is ETHICALLY wrong to summon extraplanars; only the Church of Oronthon (which governs divine, not arcane magic, really) has said anything on the subject, and very little at that, from what we've seen. (It is of course possible that there are vast libraries on the subject in Sepulchrave's world and it just hasn't come up that often.)

So here are the questions I ask you all to ponder:

- How should ethics and morality inform the use of magic on the part of D&D characters? Is it, for example, right for a chaotic good sorcerer to compel someone to do their bidding through magic, or a lawful good character to kill someone through magic?

- Who would determine these moral and ethical guidelines? Would the guidelines simply be traditional, or would they come from some magical order?

- Would the guidelines be imposed somehow by the gods/the universe, leading to karmic retribution for failure to follow them? Or would they be followed out of fear, with no actual retribution involved? (In the latter case, a whole realm of superstition could be established, with spellcasters blaming every spot of bad luck on that one little charm spell they secretly cast last week...)

I'm sure there are other questions to be asked here, and equally sure that they will be asked as this thread progresses. I just figured this was a subject worth exploring.

One thing worth noting - please, let's not turn this into a debate on the validity or morality of real-world magical traditions. I posted my examples as examples, nothing more. I don't question your beliefs, you don't question mine, and we're all happier for it. Just thought I'd better say it up front.

 

[Sid_Dithers]

n/t

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I would think that in any fantasy setting where magic was undeniable and reasonably common, that some sort of ethical system would either be imposed by the rulers of the society, or would be adopted by the practitioners of the arcane arts voluntarily.

If the society were dominated by non-magic users, leaders would be afraid of their power being usurped and the common folk would be afraid of being turned into a toad. Laws would be passed regulating magic, limiting the size of mages' guilds, etc.

There would be strong pressure for self-regulation as well. Fearing draconian measures would be imposed upon them, many magical organizations would impose their own rules and regulations, and would deal harshly with transgressors lest the sins of the few cast all in a bad light.

In such a society, offensive magic would be usably only in the same circumstances that deadly force would normally be permitted. Use in self-defense would probably be Ok, but if it resulted in death the use of a fireball would likely receive greater scrutiny from the authorities than a sword. Mages serving as members of armies or militias would probably be given carte blanche during combat, so long as they were following orders. Depending on the culture, arcane duels could even be sanctioned under similar situations as conventional duels.

There would be pretty strict regulations on other forms of magic, too. Unregulated transmutations (of, say, iron into gold) could result in rampant fraud, and would have unpredictable effects on the economy. Mind-control spells would make such democratic institutions as might exist suspect, to say the least. Summonings might be banned by more enlightened societyies that frowned on involuntary servitude, and those that did permit it would hold the mage accountable for the actions of the summoned creature.

Most utility spells, buffs, and defensive magics would be largely unregulated, although the use of otherwise permissible magic in the commission of a crime (ie teleporting into the bank vault) would probably result in a greater punishment.

Lawful good characters would be bound to follow all the strictures of society as well as any magical organization to which they belonged. They might create magical charities to heal the sick, or form volunteer magic brigades to control fires. In any event, they would see magic as a double-edge sword, aware of the benefits it could bring but fearful of how the power might be used in the wrong hands.

Chaotic good characters would generally go along, but would be especially loathe to use mind-control spells. They might also be uncomfortable with summoning spells, since depriving a sentient being of free will runs counter to their beliefs. They would be more likely to save their magic to use to their advantage.

LE characters would see magic as a means of power and control. Less powerful mages would use the law as a shield; the more powerful would use it as a means of regulating competition and keeping less powerful mages from becoming a threat. Whereas a lawful good magical organization might prohibit members from using the most powerful of spells for fear of the harm that may come to others, a lawful evil organization would use the same prohibition to prevent underlings from becoming a threat to their rule.

Chaotic evil mages would be dangerous, and they not probably not congregate in great numbers, fearing each other as much as they feared the law. They would have few compunctions about using most any spell. Summonings and mind-control magic would be rationalized as simply survival of the fittest. Offensive magic would be used pre-emptively against threats both real and suspected.

In worlds where magic was uncommon, lawfully aligned magic users would be far less common, since supersition and distrust would keep them from banding together except under the protection of powerful warlords.

 

[s/LaSH]

Assuming the metaphysical quality of magic use is no different to metal use, a medieval society as commonly seen in RPGs would probably have a few restrictions on magic.

- No magic use in towns (or at least on the streets); town guards would include mages as well. In your own home and outside the walls, it's probably OK.

- Magic use in war is probably OK. Consider the Crusades. If wizards existed in the world at that time, would they have seen use? Yes. Banning battle magic would be about as effective as banning the horse - the next warlord who wanted to conquer his neighbour would hire a wizard and answer anyone who came to dispute his decision with a quick fireball.

- Remember, magic evolved alongside standard weapons technology. The gone-but-not-forgotten Fantasy Arms Race took a stab at this. World-shattering magical power wasn't seen too often - most of the magic-enhanced battle tactics involved superior intelligence (through scent-enhanced warriors, shrouding the battlefield in mist, or griffin riders). Magic is part and parcel of a fantasy culture - nobody thinks twice about it, just like nobody thinks twice about big men with swords asking for taxes.

- Finally, if the carnage does get too overwhelming, magic isn't the only way to cause horrible damage - a single high-level fighter can battle all day and pile up loads more bodies. If this gets to be a problem, a society can be labelled 'enlightened' and compared to modern Western culture insofar as they rarely start wars with each other. They'll still kick anyone who challenges them really, really hard, but they won't go looking for a fight. Anything else is utopian daydreaming, IMHO.

 

[DM with a vengence]

I think that one of the affects is that in any Lawful or Neutral society, using charm or compulsion magic would be one of the worst offenses.

Think about it, what would disturb you more: Several world leaders being blow up in a rather strange manner, or finding out that the goverment is controlled by an elite group with unusual powers? Mind affecting magic would be banned, unless all the leaders were controlled already. In order to keep the orders legal, wizards would probably hunt down people using enchantment magic (hey, there's an angle for a campaign. Wizard guilds find rogue sorcerers, or enchancters.)

The Nyambe setting had an interesting take on more usual combat magic. Since it was considered ungodly to cast damaging spells, Wizards would craft wands of combat spells and use those.

 

[CaptainCalico]

As far as personal ethics goes, the rule I use for my characters (so far I tend to play magic-users of one sort or another) is that the effect is what counts, i.e. they would not use magic to do something that they would not do by non-magical means.

E.G. If you would attack someone with a sword then you would attack someone with a Fireball, if you would lie to someone to make them like you and do what you want you would use Charm Person, and so on.

 

[KingOfChaos]

- Would the guidelines be imposed somehow by the gods/the universe, leading to karmic retribution for failure to follow them? Or would they be followed out of fear, with no actual retribution involved? (In the latter case, a whole realm of superstition could be established, with spellcasters blaming every spot of bad luck on that one little charm spell they secretly cast last week...)

I'm sure there are other questions to be asked here, and equally sure that they will be asked as this thread progresses. I just figured this was a subject worth exploring.

One thing worth noting - please, let's not turn this into a debate on the validity or morality of real-world magical traditions. I posted my examples as examples, nothing more. I don't question your beliefs, you don't question mine, and we're all happier for it. Just thought I'd better say it up front.

Well, in most campaign settings, magic is pretty common. I don't see how a code of ethics for magic would be formed unless a nation, country, or wide religion placed some sort of 'spiritual punishment' for casting spells without thought to harm. It would definately make a good fluff addition to the magic system of any campaign setting, though I might adopt such an idea for mine, in fact.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I like this question. Social implications of magic are usually glossed over, but they can be a lot of fun.

If magic is fairly common (standard D&D levels) I imagine offensive spells would be dealt with simply as violence. Maybe a little harsher (sort of like a 3rd degree black belt might be held more accountable for "accidentally" killing someone in a bar fight than a schmoe who got off a lucky shot) but pretty similar.

Enchantment spells, on the other hand are a whole other ballgame. The PsiCorps in Bab5 springs to mind as a good model. Or some of the fantasy of Barabara Hambly. Schools of wizardry that wanted to stay around would have strict oaths to be taken before mind controlling spells could be learned, and then as an "accedemic exercise". Mages could be forbidden to marry, engage in trade or hold a place in politics. Use of a so called "love spell" or similar charm would be considered rape and the caster held to the strictest possible sentance the society allows.

You could have a situation where divine magic held power over arcane, as the church is more trusted, but just as easily have the opposite as divine casters get whatever spells they want, while a trusted arcane order could never teach enchantment spells except to the policing members.

For myself, I'v never been in a campaign where a "good guy" or ally used a charm or other enchantment for selfish means. There was a situation where it looked like a possibility, and I had made up my mind that the character in question would have a Very Bad Day if they committed what I saw as magical rape.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

E.G. If you would attack someone with a sword then you would attack someone with a Fireball, if you would lie to someone to make them like you and do what you want you would use Charm Person, and so on.

I'm not sure I'd rank charm person as equivelent to lying to someone. More similar to threatening them or their loved ones to compell them to go along with you. Obviously it depends on what the orriginal relationship was and how far out of their normal behaviour you enchant a person, but I'd agree with the vengance oriented DM that in terms of magical ethics, mind controlling enchantments are at the top of the regulatory pile.

Kahuna Burger

 

[I'm A Banana]

Generally, I take this view.

Magic is a tool.
A sword is a tool.

It is no more Evil to hit someone with a sword than it is to throw a Magic Missile at them. Or compel them. Or trick them.

Some societies will beleive that swords lead to evil and suffering, and advocate sword control (not unlike modern gun control -- because the tools exist to hurt, and people can use them to hurt innocents, they should be reigned in).

Basically, it takes something of an extreme Goodness to say "No magic, because it can be used for evil!" If there's laws against it and notaries to obtain liscences, then it's probably Lawful Good.

I could also imagine an extreme Evil saying the exact same thing...if spells can be used to help people, better to eschew their use all together.

I could imagine something like the 'Magical Amish,' disdaining modern magical advancements in favor of a natural way of life.

But, IMC, magic is 'just another tool,' one that like a sword or a gun is not inherently good or evil....it's the people who use it who dictate that.