Magic In A Vaguely Realistic "Real World"

[doctorbadwolf]

Even if it is capable of that, people are still allowed to own black powder and other components that can be turned into powerful explosives. I don't see minor magics being outlawed.

Exactly. Using magic irresponsibly will fall under existing laws, or new laws regarding using magic on people against their Will.

Certainly!

Look at human history: all it takes is a critical mass of those in power to believe something is evil for that thing to be legislated against. Sometimes violently and immorally (at least time more modern eyes).

If you look around the world today, you’re going to find a bunch of things that are punishable by long incarceration, torture or death that will seem innocuous to you,

Yes, in some nations and states, things like that may well happen.

In some totalitarian states, magic will spark revolution instead, and a group or storyteller can decide how that plays out.

But magic that can be learned, that is initially possessed mainly by people who have reason to worry about govt oppression (bc they’re weird looking minorities), is going to favor the oppressed. Which is a double edged sword, obviously.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Certainly!

Look at human history: all it takes is a critical mass of those in power to believe something is evil for that thing to be legislated against. Sometimes violently and immorally (at least time more modern eyes).

If you look around the world today, you’re going to find a bunch of things that are punishable by long incarceration, torture or death that will seem innocuous to you,

The big difference being that those almost certainly weren't things that were innovations that could demonstrably make peoples' lives better.

It's easy to make someone or something The Other if they have different customs or look different or whatever. Especially if you can blame the ills of society on them (even if that's unjustified). It's significantly less easy if they are effectively calling Mana down from heaven to feed the hungry or giving you a TV that only ever shows programs you will love.

 

[Anoth]

I thought I was erring on the side of caution. I suppose I could sum it up like this:

1. Think about human history
2. Think about how crazy religion can make people
3. Now imagine magic is real

The appearance of magic would cause every single human institution to have to reposition itself and reevaluate with the regard to the new phenomenon: science, art, religion - literally everything.

Religion doesn’t make people crazy. Poverty and desperation make people crazy along with mental illness. And merry Christmas to you too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Restrictive, but I'm sure small knives were allowed. Were all knives of all sizes completely banned?

For 145years, blades over a certain size were banned, as were blades designed for concealment, spring loads, etc.

Other non-gunpowder/concealable weapons we’re still banned outright, like brass knuckles, saps, throwing stars, etc.

Switchblades were legalized in 2013. As of Sept.1, 2019, the law is now restricting blades by location, and things like nunchucks, tomahawks, and ASP batons are legal.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Religion doesn’t make people crazy. Poverty and desperation make people crazy along with mental illness.

Yes, I was being flippant. Consider instead that the institutions of religion can be used to manipulate people and justify irrational and destructive human behavior. I don't think that's too controversial.

And merry Christmas to you too.

Happy Hanukkah!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The big difference being that those almost certainly weren't things that were innovations that could demonstrably make peoples' lives better.

It’s a subjective reality, not objective.

Some countries made possession of pearls by anyone without permission a capital crime. Others have only recently reduced criminal penalties for possessing cultured pearls.

In some regimes ownership of certain books- even in electronic form- could get you the death penalty.

Certain ultraconservative religious communities ban instruments of any kind.

If we lived in a conservative Amish theocracy, the smartphones and tablets I use to post on ENWorld & elsewhere, my car, and my electric appliances would all be outlawed.

Depending on who you are, any of those could fail your criteria of making people’s lives better.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It’s a subjective reality, not objective.

Some countries made possession of pearls by anyone without permission a capital crime. Others have only recently reduced criminal penalties for possessing cultured pearls.

In some regimes ownership of certain books- even in electronic form- could get you the death penalty.

Certain ultraconservative religious communities ban instruments of any kind.

If we lived in a conservative Amish theocracy, the smartphones and tablets I use to post on ENWorld & elsewhere, my car, and my electric appliances would all be outlawed.

Depending on who you are, any of those could fail your criteria of making people’s lives better.

Pearls are nice, but they don't generally make peoples' lives easier.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I was under the impression that you were making those claims about a democracy (or capitalistic democratic republic).

Sure, I agree the more repressive and/or ideologically motivated regimes might be extremely restrictive, at least initially.

My point was regarding relatively free societies, where things like conveniences carry significant weight. I mean lawmakers today could try to outlaw something like Facebook. Facebook would undoubtedly push back on the basis of free speech or the like, but more importantly can you imagine the millions of indignant Facebook users who would find themselves suddenly motivated to make certain that those lawmakers never saw office again?

Or if Facebook isn't your thing, imagine if lawmakers tried to outlaw automobiles. Dangerous, game changing, and arguably not good for the environment. It would be tantamount to political suicide. There are few politicians who'd be stupid enough to even attempt it, irrespective of their personal feelings on the matter.

The way I see it, in this world it is far more likely that some tech mogul or engineer gets their hands on magic before the government and finds that they have a huge leg up on the competition. By the time the government realizes what's going on and tries to legislate, magi-tech is probably already an everyday convenience for hundreds of thousands or even millions of consumers. Good luck taking that away from them. MAYBE if the government can conduct a successful enough smear campaign claiming that those products are dangerous, but against a tech giant that could easily blow up in the government's face.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Sure, I agree the more repressive and/or ideologically motivated regimes might be extremely restrictive, at least initially.

Apparently, despite not existing, witchcraft is illegal in some places. Not the pretense of witchcraft to fool gullible people, the actual practice of witchcraft.

This article Saudi Arabia's War on Witchcraft depicts the witch-fighting police unit of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I agree that some regimes might be very restrictive.

My point was regarding relatively free societies, where things like conveniences carry significant weight. I mean lawmakers today could try to outlaw something like Facebook. Facebook would undoubtedly push back on the basis of free speech or the like, but more importantly can you imagine the millions of indignant Facebook users who would find themselves suddenly motivated to make certain that those lawmakers never saw office again?

Didn't the US ban alcohol in a recent time? I don't think the regime changed much since the 20s. You just need to malign something enough in a free society to have voter back a lot of strange laws.

Also, think of trade wars. If the US was behind in the magitech race AND magitech was, as the OP explains, not enough a gamechanger to be "too good to pass", I could very well envision Boeing demonstrating that magic-supported planes are "unsafe" to try and convince lawmakers that the FAA should forbid the magic Airbus (or vice-versa, depending on which company is losing the magitech arm race). It wouldn't be enough to provoke an outright ban on magic but it's a field where I can see it happening even in democracies (I was not picking on your post, sorry if it felt that way, just providing thoughts for the OP to refine his setting if he sees something fitting).

MAYBE if the government can conduct a successful enough smear campaign claiming that those products are dangerous, but against a tech giant that could easily blow up in the government's face.

Patenting.

In liberal democracies, according to how magic work, its application could be patented to make the competition die out.

 

[Anoth]

I would say a new aristocracy would form around those that mastered magic. They would make So much for their services that they would be the new elite. They would become the new bill gates, bezo, Elon musk. They wouldn’t even have to do it
Violently. Just by selling their services. Being hired as consultants. And it wouldn’t discriminate. Anyone that could find a spell with the intelligence to learn and cast it would be a very successful person. Governments would hate that kind of upward mobility. But really couldn’t do anything about it.

 

[Beleriphon]

Didn't the US ban alcohol in a recent time? I don't think the regime changed much since the 20s. You just need to malign something enough in a free society to have voter back a lot of strange laws.

Not spoil the fun, but it really didn't work. Sure most people probably followed the law, but the fact of the matter is that it didn't work, wasn't ever going to work, and in the end was repealed. There were also exceptions to the law. Too many people enjoyed alcohol to ban it effectively at any level by the Federal Government.