illegal magic

[Dannyl]

Is this a world wide ban? Because if not that country has some serious economic any military disadvantages.

Was this directed at me? If so, how do you figure?

They still have a powerful clergy and a professionally trained army. They have also been in constant, periodic warfare with a race of black orcs off the northern mountains, so it does not lack hardened soldiers and military minds. It is, in fact, one of the most powerful and largest nations on the map right now. In the world, they are the primary super power with very few direct rivals.

And no, naturally, their influence only reaches their own borders and there are plenty of city states and other, albeit, smaller nations and areas where arcane magic is much more tolerated. But there is no where that arcane magic is abundant, since the way I have built it, to become a wizard is over twice as hard as becoming cleric. The learning curve and mind, and intellect required, is much steeper, and thus arcane practitioners are much more rare, far in between, their ways unknown and so largely misunderstood (and mistrusted).

The only exception to that rule are the few elven powers. They have a long tradition of arcane aptitude and naturally their high mages, but the elves pay very little mind to the doings of men. Their moto is, don't bother us and we don't bother you and it has been very successful so far

 

[Derren]

Was this directed at me? If so, how do you figure?

No, it was directed at the OP.
A nation forbidding magic, even if only arcane one, robs itself of a huge advantage. Thats like some nation forbidding steel or, a bit more technologically advanced, steam power.

 

[Dethklok]

A nation forbidding magic, even if only arcane one, robs itself of a huge advantage. Thats like some nation forbidding steel or, a bit more technologically advanced, steam power.

Of course, but I don't think you're following your analogy through to its conclusion.

Much available technology has the effect of improving life for the user at the expense of some larger picture. Nuclear power is great for generating energy, but I hear Japan is giving it up in the aftermath of their recent disaster. Abortion is great for terminating an unwanted pregnancy, but societies without abortion have larger birthrates. Submachineguns are excellent weapons, but in the wrong hands they become tools of mass murder. Low cost food is wonderful, until obesity rates skyrocket. Likewise, magic could easily have some similar tradeoffs at the societal scale if it


* Weakens the fabric of reality, allowing extra-planar entities to invade areas with heavy magic use,

* Has addictive qualities,

* Is better for attack than defense, so that it's easy for mentally unbalanced sorcerers to kill huge numbers of innocent people, or

* Is better for defense than attack, so that the existing power structure gradually becomes corrupt with no hope for a revolution.


Technology often has complicated repercussions at the societal level.

 

[Derren]

Submachineguns are excellent weapons, but in the wrong hands they become tools of mass murder.

* Is better for attack than defense, so that it's easy for mentally unbalanced sorcerers to kill huge numbers of innocent people, or

* Is better for defense than attack, so that the existing power structure gradually becomes corrupt with no hope for a revolution.


Technology often has complicated repercussions at the societal level.

Yet no one forbids technology because of that. Restricting access, yes but not forbidding.
Submachine guns are dangerous? Yes, but you won't find any army in the world without them. Magic is good for attack? Then lets attack someone. Or at least have the capability to attack someone so that they do not get funny thoughts about attacking us.
And the existing power structure, the who could outlaw magic, certainly has a vested interest in not being overthrown.

Unless it is a world wide ban, refusing to use something with such a huge field of application as magic is a big disadvantage. It would work when the world is filled with small and weak countries which could hardly train a significant number of wizards or control them. But once that structure is in place, no ban on magic would be possible in the long run as external pressure would eventually require the use of it.

 

[Dannyl]

A nation forbidding magic, even if only arcane one, robs itself of a huge advantage. Thats like some nation forbidding steel or, a bit more technologically advanced, steam power.

In a way yes, though I think it is not that simple because you presume everyone else still has it. Modern analogies like nuclear power and guns do not work very well. For one, the obvious, which is that in my case it is possible to substitute arcane with divine magic, which is just as potent. Secondly, there is a huge difference between legalizing the study and use of magic for the individual citizen and applying an application of magic to war.

Ten to twenty mages in the army are not going to make or break it. In a battle of tens of thousands, those dozen or two mages are a small consequences. You would need more than that and a way to coordinate them, to bring out their maximum potential, to cooperate, etc etc. Otherwise it is akin to two ships fighting at sea and the other has one gun-powder cannon.

I'm not denying that magic certainly can improve a society, economically and socially, and of course its military potential is enormous but, especially in a world based on the middle ages, it is a lot harder to incorporate than you make it sound.

 

[Dethklok]

Yet no one forbids technology because of that. Restricting access, yes but not forbidding... But once that structure is in place, no ban on magic would be possible in the long run as external pressure would eventually require the use of it.

That isn't really relevant to my comment. You claimed technology like magic was a huge advantage; specifically you wrote, "A nation forbidding magic... robs itself of a huge advantage. Thats like some nation forbidding steel or, a bit more technologically advanced, steam power." My rejoinder was that this wasn't necessarily the case, and that the net effect of any technology, whether real or fantastic, may not be beneficial.

Ten to twenty mages in the army are not going to make or break it. In a battle of tens of thousands, those dozen or two mages are a small consequences. You would need more than that and a way to coordinate them, to bring out their maximum potential, to cooperate, etc etc. Otherwise it is akin to two ships fighting at sea and the other has one gun-powder cannon.

Hilarious!

 

[Dannyl]

Hilarious!

I didn't think so but kk, if you say so.

 

[Derren]

Ten to twenty mages in the army are not going to make or break it. In a battle of tens of thousands, those dozen or two mages are a small consequences. You would need more than that and a way to coordinate them, to bring out their maximum potential, to cooperate, etc etc. Otherwise it is akin to two ships fighting at sea and the other has one gun-powder cannon.

(Using 3E rules here)
I disagree with that. Wizards have a lot more control over a battlefield with illusions and fog spells. They also get other important spells more early than clerics like Scrying (and have exclusive access to its counter). They are also much more useful in a siege with access to shatter, knock and levitate (for the gate). Coordination is also not that much of a problem with the Message lvl 0 spell or Sending (which clerics have a easier access to, but having wizards does not exclude also having clerics).
And lets not forget that it are usually wizards who craft magical items and brew potions and not clerics.

 

[messy]

Is this a world wide ban? Because if not that country has some serious economic and military disadvantages.

it might as well be, as there's only one city in the world ("point" of light).

 

[Electric Wizard]

Maybe wizards themselves have created harsh regulations against the use of magic. A small cabal of spellcasters wants to monopolize all knowledge and practice of magic for themselves because they fear rivalry or that it will fall into the "wrong" hands. They take in apprentices reluctantly, and only teach them spells deemed safe unless they show unusual promise and can be trusted to stick to the cabal. And who could better enforce anti-magic laws than wizards?