Does the concept of "forbidden" magic imply lawfulness?


Advice


I'm running a homebrew world and two of the PCs are followers of Charivar, the god of magic and secrets, who is neutral. There are three primary orders within the church, one of which is the Guardians of the Way. As I described in the write-up for the faith, the Guardians of the Way consist of priests who seek out those practicing dangerous or forbidden magic and put a stop to it.

So the question is, what constitutes 'dangerous or forbidden magic'? Since Charivar is a neutral deity, and a deity of magic to boot, I'm having trouble coming up with ideas of what kinds of magic would be considered threatening to the church without the deity and/or faith venturing too close to lawful alignment territory or away from the idea that a deity of magic encourages the advancement of magical knowledge.

For example, one of my ideas was that wordcasting would be considered forbidden, and one of the duties that the Guardians would perform would be to hunt down wordcasters and eliminate them. Could that be something that's practiced within the context of neutrality, or is that too indicative of lawfulness?

To put it in a more general terms, is the idea of "right magic" and "wrong magic" within the context of a faith/deity's philosophy compatible with neutrality?


Xexyz wrote:


To put it in a more general terms, is the idea of "right magic" and "wrong magic" within the context of a faith/deity's philosophy compatible with neutrality?

Absolutely but feel free to come up with your own worldbuilding in this matter. One would imagine that cultural stigmatas(Stigmati?) of the region would play a heavy part in how one goes about this.

Animating Undead is a common "forbidden magic." Summoning Outsiders is also looked down upon. Binding them is a huge no no to most practitioners because of the danger of being freed.

In a particularly war-torn region, the Guardians might look down on those practicing Evocation as it's common use is on the battlefield and thus these practitioners may be trying to start things up again.

Perhaps Charivar himself doesn't care much for how people use Magic as long as it's being used and developed. Perhaps it's just his followers who decided some magic isn't best left unchecked. So while the God may be neutral, his most ardent followers might be Lawful Neutral in how they perceive his worship.


Nethys, Golarion's own neutral magic god, supports anything as long as it involves magic or promotes the use of magic. In my opinion, a Neutral Magic God would never try to limit casting to only certain methods or spells. I believe that would make him LN/NG, depending on his opinions and tastes.

On the flip side, a Neutral God can have Lawful Neutral worshipers. If they believe certain kinds of casting somehow negatively influences the amount of magic in the world, they would be tasked with eliminating it.

Or, if they just dislike it in general, they could try to prove the superiority of standard casting practices without ever directly attacking wordcasting. It'd be against their religion to actively limit that magic, but if they happen to never openly support that type of casting, foster it's use, or teach it to apprentices, then it has much the same effect. Nethys' distinct lack of sanity makes this reasonable for his followers, but Charivar might be more perceptive. Hope this helps.


I vaguely remember reading that Nethys dislikes mage's disjunction, antimagic field, and Aroden's spellbane because they're used to destroy/inhibit magic, and I'm sure he'd disapprove of, say, one wizard wanting to be the only caster there was, but that's about it.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Ultimate Magic has a section on Spellblights, which can be caused by certain spells (Frex, eldritch fever)

A God of magic would have good reason to shut down magic that screws with people's ability to use magic.


It is probably not types of magic like certain schools, or animating undead. It would probably be more uncontrolled magic or casting methods that endanger the world. Someone using prescribed tested methods to cast spells is fine, but wild experimentation could be considered dangerous. If there is a chance that the magic can get out of control and endanger the world or at least a significant portion of it, it is forbidden.

Also calling on some sources of power may be considered inherently dangerous. If your world has something similar to the dark tapestry than calling on the powers from there may be forbidden. Normal demons or devils could be fine, just not horrors from beyond the stars that want to destroy the universe.


Scavion wrote:
Perhaps Charivar himself doesn't care much for how people use Magic as long as it's being used and developed. Perhaps it's just his followers who decided some magic isn't best left unchecked. So while the God may be neutral, his most ardent followers might be Lawful Neutral in how they perceive his worship.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Ultimate Magic has a section on Spellblights, which can be caused by certain spells (Frex, eldritch fever)

A God of magic would have good reason to shut down magic that screws with people's ability to use magic.

I forgot about spellblights. So perhaps what I'll do is say that the Guardians in general are principally responsible for cleaning up spellblights when they happen, but the lawful neutral guardians then confront spellcasters who cause spellblights and stop them.


I agree that a neutral god of magic wouldn't consider schools or specific spells as being forbidden. I also agree that what they would likely be against antimagic and uncontrolled wild magic.

Make them a god of the art of magic, the science of magic. They control it, and anything that goes against that would be forbidden.


Magic which distorts the world balance too far could be forbidden by a neutral deity, not just good spells or chaotic spells but also spells like wish which can distort the balance too far. As the god of secrets various divination spells might also be forbidden, not because they threaten the balance but because they attack the deity's position as the protector of secrets and threaten the source of his godhood, although since you only mention "secrets" as his portfolio it might be the other way if he is a discoverer of secrets and then spells which conceal secrets could be among the forbidden spells.

edit: also mind control type spells can be forbidden as they subvert the balance of law/chaos/good/evil.


I would argue that he would probably be against irresponsible use of magic too.

It's one thing to use magic for most anything. It's another to use a fireball to cook your bread. A forge that uses heat metal? Alright. A forge that uses seven reverse gravity fields to cause friction in a material to heat it up to the temperature needed? Probably not so much. Polymorph any object/ greater polymorph to satisfy customers at a brothel? Okay. Utilizing Augury and Divination magic to figure out what each customer is going to what before they are born and then setting up a complex turn of events that contingencies the exact creature being available exactly when that customer gets to the brothel to meet the kink? Meh got to say that's probably going too far.

Magic can do things multiple ways, that doesn't mean each way should be used just because it can.

Also just because he's neutral doesn't mean he's going to be really happy about a lot of evil stuff happening just because a lot of good stuff happens too.

The use of Contagion just because you can probably not a great idea.


You could make the Neutral deity abhor strongly aligned magic, if you want to build on that mechanism. The clerics would ban summoning non-neutral creatures in any way, and be quite suspicious of any aligned spell. Add in a few historical events where proponents of these types of magic have been dangerous to the world, to magic, and to the deity's church, and you have a perfect explanation for their mistrust and bans.


Just want to emphasize that he's a neutral god of magic, not a true neutral one - he doesn't care about the balance of good/evil or law/chaos.

So from reading these responses there seems to be a consensus that just because the god doesn't condone unrestricted use of magic doesn't mean he's lawful. That makes me feel better.


True Neutral doesn't HAVE to be a "judge" obsessed with balance, that's just the easiest way to do it.

Law v. Chaos is always going to be an Alignment Thread *alarms blare, hatches batten down* issue, but you don't have to make your "I crush forbidden magic" god lawful if you don't want to.

It's usually more a question of flavor anyway. Like if his realm is this symmetry-obsessed and ordered perfection or his main summons all have "smite chaos" or something.

As for forbidden magics, I'd assume that magics which are "too powerful" or which draw on the "wrong" forces (mostly tentacles) would be forbidden. I don't care if all you're casting is a magic missile, if it uses energies from the Far Realms or something the Aboleth taught you it needs to stop. Defiling magic, or some homebrew kind of defiling magic might also be a good target. Nothing quite like a feat that lets you wear holes in reality and cause fission slimes to spontaneously generate (can't seem to find stats online, it was basically green slime that ate magic) in exchange for more magical power. As long as you're on the move, it's not your problem.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Does the concept of "forbidden" magic imply lawfulness? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.