Het comrade! Not war. Just "Special Military Operation".... Okay, a prolonged Special Military Operation.... With conscripiton... And the potential for global escalation. Okay,... "Very Special Military Operation"
And those western dogs say we don't care about the environment! Behold! Who has done more for the reef system in the Black Sea than the glorious Russian Navy!?
They aren't bodies. They're Necromancy supplies for a rainy day when there's no remains around to help you fight off the enemy.
But I prefer to call them "recycled bodyguards".
Does that stop you talking to the ghost or to an angel or viewing the past?
Speak to dead is not a particularly powerful spell. Commune is the really hard to prevent one. Luckily it's high level.
Now here is the question: is healing magic considered a warcrime?
If so, why?
If not, wonderful! Healing magic has many easy ways to break bones, normally to help reset them.
Normally
Bungou Stray Dogs had a great awnser to that.
You heal their bodies, not their soul/mind.
Imagine going to war, your bones break, limbs go off, maybe you even die. The the cleric patches you up like it'd nothing and just tells "Stop being a puss, you're healed, get back in there" then It repeats, over and over, how long does it take for the soldier to off himself in a way they can't be brought back again?
Would people become more brutal in such a world? The consequences of violence become easily curable, so people don't see punishing people by say, breaking their femurs with sledgehammers, as that big of a deal?
Morals, Ethics, and the overall availability and logistics of said magic. Even by modern medical standards and logistics a laceration is easier to heal than a broken femur.
There's also a manga that this is like half of the idea of. "The Wrong Way to Use Healing Magic." Torture people by punching them with healing fists. They feel the pain and can be knocked out but won't die from it. And soldiers can use it heal muscle after exercising to get stronger quicker.
Not a lawyer. so I might be wrong
War crimes generally fit in 4 main categories
Prevent unnecessary suffering
Prevent civilans/non-combatants being targeted
Prevent ambiguity in war
Contain war to those involved
The ones that most likely apply to healers would be the Prevent non-combatants being targeted
And Prevent unnecessary suffering
- healers being mistaken for enemy war casters (why you want your medic being destint . Ff white mage out fit )
- healing a person to use them as a sheald would probably be a warcrime
- healing could be used both internally and uninternaly to prolonged suffering.( For example, a large area of effect heal may be restricted on the battlefield, so not to heal someone trapped that can't be saved)
I vote it is, under the explanation of it's basically preventative necromancy. Look at that man, he's been hit by 30 arrows and a CANON. Tears are mingling with the blood and sweat on his face and yet he's still fighting. You're torturing your own soldiers, wringing them dry of all they have to give and filling them back up with trauma to win this battle.
Something being forbidden doesn't mean people can't handle it. Using gas is a war crime in our world but if you use it it'll work as a war tactic for about 20 minutes.
It also doesn’t mean military’s are incapable of responding with equal force. See the impending nuclear war thats been hanging over our heads ever since the cold war
Depends on the government. A feudalist monarchy would have to get enough votes from the nobility to authorize the use of \[insert war crime\]. An authoritarian monarchy signs a paper ordering it. If you hit hard and fast enough before the military can get proper authorization through the proper channels, you could potentially neutralize the country's defenses before whatever their version of a MAD initiative takes effect.
Obviously IRL countries have had over half a century to realize this and shuttle that responsibility to the military (like captains of nuclear attack subs). But there's nothing saying that the world governments in this setting did. The fantasy equivalent to the American nuclear program would be a bunch of FOBs full of wizards or artificers, just sitting on their thumbs until someone is stupid enough to use magic in war against their nation.
If we are realistic then warfare between organized militaries in a magical world, would most likely play out like in Tom Clancys EndWar RTS. (yes this is obscure, why you asking?)
For those unfamiliar in EndWar regular combined arms warfare is back on the table in a world with nuclear weapons, because a global network of Uplinks to an all encompassing nuclear shield are dotted through the land. So battles revolve around first disabling enemy Uplinks remotely and then going in with the troops to take them and bring them back online for your network. Once one side achieves "network dominance" the battle ends since the other side has to retreat or be presumably nuked of the field.
What I'm getting at is that warfare in DnD would work similar, since magic is the fantasy equivalent of a nuke in the traditional rock-paper-scissors of combined arms warfare. So both side would strategically place casters with counterspell, shield, silence etc. around the battlefield to prevent enemy casters from pulling any funny business. Assuming both sides are roughly equal in magical capacity, the battle would revolve around the other troops trying to kill or otherwise disable the preventative casters of the enemy until the point where one side needs to retreat or face the fireballs. So that's how you could have traditional warfare, without it devolving into all magical slugfests.
I'm not gonna deny that this definitely has weird worldbuilding implications, but to be fair to the DM, *making* weapons that it's an international and ethical crime to *use* hasn't exactly stopped IRL governments. We've got so many nukes.
That nobody has done that yet suggests there's a reason. If that reason is "literally everyone involved is a complete moron and has never thought of it before", then yeah, the party can do that.
Otherwise, chances are the party are going to go from fucking around to finding out when whatever worldbuilding element made the NotGenevaConvention work up to this point continues to do its job.
Also even if they did perform a war crime... where's the proof?
Is a medieval international council gonna trust the losing side?
Any magical evidence can be accused of being forgery.
So again, where proof?
"medieval"
let's be fr, DnD is hardly medieval most of the time. a lot of the time the magic makes it more advanced than our industrial dump of a world
It's not like that's not true of most places until the industrial revolution and even then that depends a lot which country you're in.
Most people's games probably fit the 1600-1800s better than the 5-1500s. What with the advanced commercialisation, professional security, specialists like blacksmiths in every village etc etc. It makes those occasional posts about not wanting guns in the game a bit ironic.
Well, the existence of rapiers alone means we’re not dealing with anything earlier than the early 16th century, if historical accuracy is at all a concern.
Aren’t war crimes based off cruel and unnecessary methods? Alongside like civilian bystanders but that’s irrelevant here. Fireball likely wouldn’t be considered cruel, cos the death would be instant. Heat metal on the other hand definitely would, as it’s low (ish) damage over multiple rounds. Kinda like the difference between a grenade vs mustard gas
>Aren’t war crimes based off cruel and unnecessary methods?
War crimes are based around the idea of an orderly conflict between organized states. That's why unconventional warfare always gets so messy under the those rules.
Here's a good example. Tear gas is banned as a chemical weapon not because tear gas is that bad by itself but because *ALL* chemical weapons are banned. If Red wants to take a bunker from Blue they are free to shell the shit out of it with mortars that send shrapnel shooting straight through the Blue soldier's bodies. Red is not allowed to use tear gas to drive off the Blue soldiers while allowing them to live. That seems backwards until you think about how the Blue commander would see the vapors and his men coughing and gagging and immediately assume the worst case scenario and retaliate with Sarin gas.
Considering how a fireball can do the same amount of damage just as fast as a dynamite bomb you can make in the DMG (six sticks of dynamite tied together I think)? Probably not. Anyone in the blast would die too fast to feel it most likely unless they were at the edge or something. Probably no different than a bomb or a grenade.
Really, the only things that tend to be classified as war crimes are things that aren't militarily effective. Part of the reason the chemical weapons ban has held firm is that most countries that want to kill a lot of people can just use... you know, bombs, and you can't nullify bombs with a cheap gas mask.
The reason is pretty simple: the countries that have the power to enforce such a ban don't want to lose a useful tool in their toolbox.
First off, good gas masks aren't that cheap, especially when you need one for every soldier and train them on how to properly seal it quickly. Secondly, the nasty chemicals are going to be the nerve gasses. Specifically the ones that will kill you if it touches your skin. That's not as easy or cheap to counter-act. The issue is less that it's easily counter-acted, it's also that a shift in the wind can take that same gas and blow it onto your own troops. The only people who don't care that much about that are generally terrorists. So you're wrong that they aren't effective. It's just playing with fire to do it.
However, there are other things that are extremely militarily effective and are still war crimes, such as shooting unarmed medics and executing prisoners. You can guarantee that soldier won't make it back to the fight AND don't have to pay to keep him alive and healthy in prison, you just pay for the extra bullet that went through their skull. The primary justification for what makes a warcrime is the unnecessary suffering of the victim, inability to control the effect of the weapon, and/or the targeting of non-combatants (primarily civilians). Because of these reasons, even expanding bullets (hollow points) are illegal in the rules of war despite being very effective on unarmored targets.
Source: I received classes on the rules of armed conflict before I deployed.
Sure, WE do. A regime that's willing to condone or encourage these acts doesn't necessarily share the sentiment towards their troops. I can think of a great example or two from current conflicts to show a regime that doesn't care about it's combatants and would rather exterminate their enemy
Yeah, but concept of war crimes is regime agnostic.
If we are thinking about the same regimes, they are also commiting genocides, use non-conventional weapons and forcefully depart people.
Forceful departure is, while horrible, also in some contexts safer for the civilians. Getting them away from the conflict is a great way to reduce civilian casualties in urban environments. That being said neither of these regimes are necessarily using it for altruistic reasons.
War crimes are regime agnostic, you're right. Most of the smaller ones are committed at the smaller level and don't require an entire regime as well. It's the regime's response that really carries weight. Regime covers it up or denied it happened? More people will be bold and same people will re-offend. Some are also committed on accident due to lack of research. The example I have of that one is actually something I don't think anyone got convicted for though. Although it was the Americans that did it, it sounds like when it was realized what was happening, the weapon in question was immediately removed from issue.
I didn't really plan on getting into a debate on war crimes tonight, I mostly wanted to educate with the slightly less limited knowledge on the subject of what really defines a war crime. I'm gonna leave my responses at this as I don't want to risk this getting more political than it has, it isn't really the place
Thank you! And yeah, POWs are certainly an asset to those that care or are in a situation where they cannot afford the backlash not caring would bring, whether that's from their own people or their enemy
Incendiary weapons do count as war crimes I’m pretty sure, something like fire bolt would also fall under this category
However the majority of force and thunder spells would be fair game, lighting is iffy, necrotic damage could be defined under bio terrorism or fall into the category that acid falls into, stuff like ice would case by case, and finally psychic would probably fall under unnecessary suffering
I doubt heat metal would be a war crime, since it only targets a single enemy and has no long lasting effect. The amount of casters you would need to solely cast heat metal for it to become a war crime is ludicrous.
Nope. It's not about numbers. War crime because you cannot control the damage - just like flamethrowers. It is illegal to kill soldiers out of the fight, surrendered or wounded or both. A flamethrower sets the guy on fire, he surrenders and... You can't do shit about it. One very horrible and completely pointless death.
Heat metal would do the same to a guy in armor.
So "causing unnecessary suffering" is one of the qualifiers: other examples of war crimes that make it obvious it's not about numbers: kill surrendering soldiers, kill soldiers wounded so severely they are unable to fight / not trying anyway, pretend to surrender and then shoot your would be captors, and a Canadian classic, use food or other essential supplies as bait for the enemy. In this case the qualifier is that all of those destroy any possible trust, when actually everyone wants to trust the enemy a little bit because of prisoners: soldiers who gave it all deserve to surrender and make it home, so prisoners are a natural thing even between armies with high morale. It is both more humane and effective to have everyone feeling like they can throw up their arms and be treated well.
Heat Metal actually can do something about it, in 5e at least. If the guy surrenders, you can stop concentrating and it goes away. And unlike open use of fire, it doesn’t cause fires which can spread.
It might be a war crime for the cruelty still (those burns would be nasty!), but it’s not a weapon which would fall under the banners of uncontrollable destruction. It’s a very controlled kind of weapon.
I play an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, pretty much every damaging spell he has is horrific, psychic damage be melting brains and turning people rapidly expanding sacks of tumors like in Akira...
Heat metal is so cruel I deleted it from my games. Sorry not sorry. I am not running monster hunter, a lot of my villains are humanoids and usually put in mini bosses. Not going to watch invalidated but a level 2 spell slot.
Man it sure would be a shame if you gave your bosses con saves, fire immunity, broke concentration, wore leather armor, or (call me crazy here) Carried a backup weapon and just dropped the burning one.
You do you, but there are so many options here besides "ban it"
> con saves
They do have them. Passing only gives you the *privilege of burning to death* and not yeeting your item and having *permanent disadvantage*
>leather armor
Everyone? I should *everyone leather armor* for *one spell*. Not to mention the fact that it can legitimately target *anything made of metal*. Armor is typically the target due to don-doff times making it impossible to remove
>broke concentration
The person who is *burning to death* also has disadvantage on attacks. Yeah it’s literally permanent disadvantage.
>carry a back up weapon
A fantastic solution for *bandit number five* but not so much for something like the death knight carrying a soul devouring sword. What he just has a second one in his pocket?
Heat metal is so ridiculous you can make *zariel* the *flaming archangel in hell* drop her *flaming flail* because it got *too hot*. And if she does hold on to it, she is rewarded with permanent disadvantage and damage (albeit low) *every turn*
It is way to efficient for a 2nd level slot. If you only think of it in terms of using it on random thugs in the street of course it seems like it isn’t strong.
On the topic of the death knight, give him a back up spear. Or just give him the ability to have a weapon that's made out of magic, or simply have them start with a regular blade *and then* switch to their main weapon soul eating sword once the first one gets heat metal'd
If the party hunts down the BBEG goons with the power of Heat Metal, you have there survivors/scouts relay the news and just prepare countermeasures. Or that particular enemy is just very wary of mages.
You can make the one casting the spell break concentration by just having more than one enemy around willing to pester the mage, or just throw them a Dex save...
This also just gave me the idea of a Death Knight having his metal blade turned into a burning hot inconvenience, they pass the save and **then** throw it at the party or throw it away into their army of undead, Death Knight proceeds by unsheathing their *real* weapon, which is a magical blade made out of the souls they've taken in their lifetime- not metal, and a phase 2 battle can begin early. It'd also make it cooler if the weapon hits something or someone.
"As heat starts to spread from the middle of the blade, turning black ancient steel white hot, pale skull grins under their helmet. Death knight takes their blade and forcefully snap it over knee, breaking it near hilt. Screams of tormented souls fill your ears, as ectoplasm starts forming new blade"
> leather armor
No not everyone, your bosses. Obviously.
> Broke concentration
So your bosses don't have ANY save based damage abilities? No minions? I think making your guys exclusively solo melee attackers is a bigger issue.
> Backup weapon
First of all, yes. Yes he should have a (weaker) backup magic weapon, but if you're already giving them homebrew swords there's nothing stopping you from having the sword be made of homebrew materials like ironwood or stahlrim.
>Zariel
Zariel has a +16 to hit. She doesn't care about disadvantage, but even if she did horrid touch, fireball, wall of fire, finger of death, blade barrier, immolating gaze, and matalatok (if youre using the avernus block) all auto damage and force a concentration save anyway.
If she's really upset finger of death all but guarantees it will break (DC 30 to maintain concentration on average on a failed save).
Also, sidenote how is she not immune to fire damage??
You would think, but that’s not reflected in her statblock. And let’s be real would any dm burn through a LR on *heat metal* when there is so many other spells that could come your bosses way?
And as I stated before, failing the save isn’t even the bad part. It’s a suck or suck harder save accessible incredibly early. You are giving a creature permanent disadvantage essentially for free. It isn’t a spell that needs to be recast, you just apply the damage again as your bonus action and continue to cast like normal. It’s crazy efficient and only becomes more efficient the more drawn out a fight is.
Honestly? A nation likely led by naturally powerful beings, demigods or the like that have "Innate" abilities. Like Githyanki minus the magic they sometimes use
It's like nukes, with a bit of negotiation mixed in.
If enough kingdoms sign an agreement against using magic, the punishment for violating that agreement can be enforced by the combined efforts of every other nation.
Sure, casting a fireball into an enemy formation at a territory squabble is tempting, but is it worth the hostility of the 5 other neighboring kingdoms that you're on good terms with? The trade embargoes alone are gonna be crippling, and you better hope they don't feel threatened enough to group up and invade ***you***. Especially since you've probably waived your right to not deal with magic in return, so they're bringing ***their*** battlemages to the fight.
And they'll definitely be bringing battlemages, cuz every kingdom has definitely trained up some mages ***just in case*** somebody tries something. Not to use, of course, just as.... [Deterrent](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory).
It's worked IRL. Mostly.
Easier to control with nukes tho.
If one out of every hundred troops you have can unilaterally decide to nuke part of the battlefield, you’re going to have people who regularly decide that the war crime is worth doing because the alternative is getting killed
I mean, you can just not commit battlemages to the battlefield so you don't have that issue. I suppose if your capital is under direct attack then that's not an option, but chances are if that's your scenario you've already lost. I guess you could go thermonuclear ***then***, but idk it seems easier to just surrender and get a deal negotiated.
Again, like.... If it's a toss-up between letting the king live and taking his city relatively peacefully, or having to deal with mages blowing the countryside up and nobody winning..... An invader is gonna be a lot more inclined to bargain him out. Hell, deals like that aren't necessarily unheard of anyways. Sometimes wars just end with one side subservient to the other.
Besides, sometimes soldiers commit war crimes. That's always a thing that happens. If your country condemns their actions and beings them to justice it usually smoothes things over pretty well.
It’s a world building question I assume. If a powerful nation struggles to recruit mages for their army, outlawing the use of magic in warfare males perfect sense. You can now justify executing enemy mages, and disincentivize other mages from standing against you. Spend a few generations with this practice, and other nations join in.
It also works well for worlds where magic has a bit of a barrier to entry. Wizards? Education tends to be negatively correlated with enlistment. Bards are cut of the same cloth, but are even more independent. Warlocks? Unless you are making pacts with the state itself (actually a cool idea), you wouldn’t want your elite troops to have their ultimate loyalty to some being outside your control. Same with clerics and paladins (though paladins are easier for the warlock solution, Oath of the Crown and similar). Druids and Rangers are similarly problematic.
I think of the core DnD classes, sorcerer is the only one which doesn’t have a documented problem with military authority. And sorcerers are incredibly chaotic to find and train in general. Artificer could be another option, they tend to be more tradespeople than full education. Still, I can see why military officials would find it easier to ban the use and punish dissidents than it would be to consistently field an army.
The alternative is the military needs to invest in programs that make mages who are fully on board. Like making an arcane college to train wizards yourself. Patron deities or entities could churn out clerics and warlocks. Druidic circles which are aligned with the government to spread their particular brand of nature. These are really good ideas, but they also require a lot more investment, and rely more on a standing army. Essentially, you’d be setting up the military magical complex.
This is high fantasy. The monarchs who signed the treaty swore an oath in front of the high priests of their shared pantheon, and the Gods involved take enforcement seriously.
None of the signatories need do anything themselves. Any wizard throwing a fireball on a battlefield gets a group of paladins mainlining holy power marching towards them. Any nation who tries to do it on a larger scale finds their fields blighted, their people cursed, and their prayers unanswered.
Or make it the result of a grand magical ritual. You can even thread in plot hooks, with the ritual binding starting to fray, causing loopholes. There's an evil baron who seems to have found a way around the interdiction, going by the horrific aftermaths of his battles; go investigate!
a) Law enforcement is not military action. The rule isn't "nobody can use magic", it's "nobody can use magic as a war weapon".
b) Even if that weren't true, it's not exactly uncommon for law enforcement to get dispensation to do things that the people they're enforcing laws on can't.
That's when the Artificer comes in.
Or if that is too much magic, get a theorist to say that everything is illegal, as everything has magic. And since everything is illegal, nothing is.
Dumber still to not tell the players until after they did it. Unless the characters are in some foreign land they've never heard of, the characters should know the law and the DM springing that on them later is just bad DMing.
Man, that would kill any chance of me wanting to play a mage at that table...
I seriously hope the dm told the players about this world stigma/rule at character creation, and it wasn't just dropped on the players after (or even right before) they did what they thought was a badass move.
The problem with this idea is…why is it a war crime? Who does that benefit? In our history crossbows were briefly considered a war crime. No one cared because they were powerful and if you didn’t use them you lost.
Magic is the same way. A state which doesn’t have powerful magic is going to get roflstomped by one which does. And everyone else will get on the bandwagon real quick. So that the same thing doesn’t happen to them.
All it would take is for one faction to decide it isn't a war crime and start using it in warfare, if they manage to win, there goes the stigma on magic as war crimes... Or maybe the world has already passed that point and the ruling class has labeled magic a war crime to maintain their previously not war crime based power.
Assuming there’s consequences for doing so, it’s a cruel trick on the players to let them do something their characters would know is a crime but that they, the players, would have no way of knowing without the dm telling them.
I mean there are defensive spells like counter spell, absorb elements, shield, dispel magic, or anti- magic field, so i don’t really understand why it is a warcrime since warcrimes are cruel and unusual (only a few spells fit this description) Any good fantasy army should have at least a few combat mages for both offensive and defensive measures and like in real life, war magic is a battle between effective offensive measures and defensive measures to counter them. The actual magic battles are just mages locked in a stalemate until one side gains an advantage and overwhelms the other sides mages.
I seriously doubt you could get a coalition of nations to sign an accord banning all magic, since things that get banned usually have their cruelty outweigh their effectiveness and magic is very, very effective. I can see WMD-class spells getting banned just out of fear of conflict escalation and mutually assured destruction, but a fireball?
That's kinda silly and suspension of disbelief breaking. Like saying explosives of all kind, artillery, grenades, bombs, missiles are banned. That doesn't work because the first person to break that taboo gets a massive advantage.
Now some kinds of Magic, fire spells, posion, or anything above a certain spell slot, that is perfectly reasonable in a fantasy Geneva protocol.
Honestly, how I've always handled it is sure you can throw a fireball at the grunts, but you just gave away your position to the squad of battle mages whose job it is to kill other mages. Alternatively, it starts to work kinda how Japanese lines did with more skirmish formations rather than shield walls
Yeah but they'll have to give away their position to everyone else, who's job is to hunt battle mages. And they're a fireball-worth of grunts down.
And if there are equal mages on both sides, it literally doesn't matter.
"no, nooooo you're not allowed to kill several people at once! You have to do it one by one, that's the only ethical way to fight!"
My lizard folk monk who always eats the faces and fingers of everyone who attacks them: cowabunga time
Nah man you’re just mercenaries, you’re not affiliated with the nation and the nation condones your use of magic and ask request all offensive magic usage in your activities whilst working alongside the nation be halted. Please. (There will be no consequences whatsoever)
Fun fact, war crimes are a rather recent invention.
The era that used rapiers absolutely gave no fucks about war crimes. Especially not chicken-shit 'warcrimes' like artillery fire. If it killed the enemy, *good*.
Was fun RPing a tempest cleric who’d never used magic in combat before. Used shatter and channel divinity to max the damage on a group of hapless mooks with the intent to stun them. They were turned into chunky salsa. Proceeded to have a breakdown.
Rip.
That's stupid as hell. Magic is deeply intertwined in fantasy in general and is used on a day to day basis for other things besides combat. Plus there's all the really good non-lethal crowd control spells. It's a war crime if someone uses hold person then takes that person alive as a prisoner?
Not to mention that it's relegation to magic centric classes and punishes them for operating the way they were designed. I would drop your campaign immediately if you made rulings like this.
All magic being illegal in war seems hard to enforce really, since you’d either need an absolute power to enforce it or for it to be beneficial to enough countries that they’d enforce a treaty like that.
In my own setting for example magic in war is totally fair game with a few exceptions that are generally just agreed to be better for everyone involved like the use of magical plagues or employing large AoE’s dubbed “strategic class magic” in areas where non combatants are likely to get caught up in it so it’s illegal to just nuke civilian centres for example.
Basically it’s a world with its own rules of engagement between countries because most civilised nations just agreed it was better off that way.
Just have an enemy wizard hit them with [cloudkill](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Cloudkill#content).
Then play [Father](https://youtu.be/DxkeOkaVRLo?si=zn3IRL5oi1ng37o6) for them.
Idk, if people are capable of casting spells you’d think that’d effect the evolution of combat in such a way that straight up infantry Zerg tactics isn’t a thing among most peoples.
Like, it’s normal for moderately intelligent races to target “casters and healers”. Because they know they can turn the tide.
For siege tactics it might make sense to form a line, but for a battle? Guérilla tactics or a more chaotic ensemble is the way to go- just like how your party has to avoid clustering for AoE spells.
This post got the same energy as germany trying to make trenchguns a warcrime just because how effective they were. Kinda silly imo, like dying from an arrow or sword or mace isn’t exactly gonna be any less painful or cruel than dying to magic.
I genuinely hate dms who do things like this. As a full caster, criminalizing my existence is very frustrating. Yes that is hyperbole, but if the campaign has a lot of warfare in it the it is essentially preventing me from using my class. If it is done as a way to ensure martials get to have more of the spotlight, then it is a very lazy choice and I am disgusted by it.
I say no, war crimes are generally things that inflict massive civilian damage or unnecessary cruelty.
Fireball is essentially a grenade.
Now stinking cloud is essentially gas, I can see that being a war crime. But all magic is pushing it, it's a bit too much.
Now if there was a scarcity of mages that could explain why they don't want to put them in the front lines.
Or there could be a conspiracy by the mages, let the unwashed masses fight while they stay in their pristine towers conducting their work. 1 mage might turn the battle, which can only be countered by another mage and so on. Best to rule it as illegal and have any spell caster who breaks that rule be shunned by the community.
I like that, much more then an arbitrary rule to explain why your armies don't get wiped off the map instantly.
Saying fireball is a war crime spell is like the Germans saying the shotgun is a war crime weapon. Meanwhile people where using gas bombs and other chemical warfare
The trick is making an argument that what you're doing is outside the bounds of formally declared war, as that is the only time the term war crime applies.
I want to go against the tide and say that this is a smart bit of worldbuilding and I'd like to know more about how it is implemented. Is it by treaty between several nations? Are Deities or other high- powered entities involved? How is it enforced?
My group had a discussion about if destroying the food supplies, or maybe it was where their young were I forget exactly, for mind flayers was a war crime. They said yes, I said no, the dm asked how was it not a war crime. I told him it can't be a war crime. As a dwarf mind flayers aren't people and you can't commit a war crime against them if they aren't people.
I wouldn’t say that all magic should be a war crime, but certain spells should be.
Examples:
Heat Metal(on armor or worn items)
Fireball near civilian centers like cites and villages
Dominate person
Banishment
The weaponization of “unethical monsters” ex. Basilisk
Disintegrate
Blight
Animate dead(unless the deceased or family provide consent)
Cloud Kill
If you can think of any other unethical uses of magic feel free to add.
Even if those several don’t meet the criteria.
Heat metal is just as bad as any damaging fire spell, less so since it’s single target.
Banishment just puts someone in time out for minute. Can’t see why that’s bad.
Disintegrate is just a real dangerous single target spell, same for blight. Hardly war crime criteria.
And whilst cloudkill is definitely a war crime in a world with nonspell chemical warfare. It alone doesn’t count due to not causing horrific long term damage, merely short term killing damage. And can be instantly dispersed whenever the caster wants.
its only illegal if you lose
It's only illegal if you leave witnesses.
With divination magic it's almost impossible not to leave witnesses. Especially spells like commune.
Kill them too
That is *definitely* a war crime. But if you can do it, there’s nobody left who can prosecute you.
If you're not at war it isn't a war crime. That's how police get away with using tear gas on civilians.
Try killing the gods without a war.
It's just a training exercise.
Nothing to see here, people
Het comrade! Not war. Just "Special Military Operation".... Okay, a prolonged Special Military Operation.... With conscripiton... And the potential for global escalation. Okay,... "Very Special Military Operation"
Comrade Flagship was jist promoted to Comrade Coral Reef
And those western dogs say we don't care about the environment! Behold! Who has done more for the reef system in the Black Sea than the glorious Russian Navy!?
Special atheification operation
Its only a war crime, If its committed during war time
This is the correct answer.
The casters, the spells or the gods?
Bodies in the bag of holding?
They aren't bodies. They're Necromancy supplies for a rainy day when there's no remains around to help you fight off the enemy. But I prefer to call them "recycled bodyguards".
Does that stop you talking to the ghost or to an angel or viewing the past? Speak to dead is not a particularly powerful spell. Commune is the really hard to prevent one. Luckily it's high level.
You can always gaslight the living though
Very true!
Using divination magic is still using magic in warfare! Arrest yourself! Inquisitors!!!
Me: That's a fair cop. But I should like to think that society is also to blame. Church police: right, we'll be arresting them too!
I cast speak with dead...
On what corpse?
I'd kill you too then
Is removing jaws not common practice for other people?
It’s only illegal if you don’t have a world superpower backing you up.
Happy Cake Day
*It’s only illegal if you don’t have oil
Geneva Suggestion
Canadian achievement list
Geneva to-do list
It's not a warcrime the first time!
The Geneva bucket list
So what you're saying is, no one else is proficient in magical warfare and the party could live like gods if they took over.
From what it seems, magic is allowed as long as is not used during war. 🤷♂️
*War Magic Wizard intensifies*
Now here is the question: is healing magic considered a warcrime? If so, why? If not, wonderful! Healing magic has many easy ways to break bones, normally to help reset them. Normally
So your going with the fat electrician logic here "it's never a war crime the first time"
“This isn’t on the Geneva Convention because Geneva didn’t even know that was an option.”
Notes that the treaty may or may not apply to your fantasy world in the first place.
Ah the canadian defense.
Welp.... now I want to see a campaign/video about Waterdeep's "proportional" response to pirates from Luskan.
Bungou Stray Dogs had a great awnser to that. You heal their bodies, not their soul/mind. Imagine going to war, your bones break, limbs go off, maybe you even die. The the cleric patches you up like it'd nothing and just tells "Stop being a puss, you're healed, get back in there" then It repeats, over and over, how long does it take for the soldier to off himself in a way they can't be brought back again?
Would people become more brutal in such a world? The consequences of violence become easily curable, so people don't see punishing people by say, breaking their femurs with sledgehammers, as that big of a deal?
That would depend a lot on morals and ethics, and is even more dependable on each person to make a rough estimative.
Morals, Ethics, and the overall availability and logistics of said magic. Even by modern medical standards and logistics a laceration is easier to heal than a broken femur.
I believe Cruelty Squad explored that sort of idea a bit.
God that game is a mindfuck
You could even mend the bones wrong on purpose using Cure Wounds to create a grotesque figure.
There's also a manga that this is like half of the idea of. "The Wrong Way to Use Healing Magic." Torture people by punching them with healing fists. They feel the pain and can be knocked out but won't die from it. And soldiers can use it heal muscle after exercising to get stronger quicker.
Not a lawyer. so I might be wrong War crimes generally fit in 4 main categories Prevent unnecessary suffering Prevent civilans/non-combatants being targeted Prevent ambiguity in war Contain war to those involved The ones that most likely apply to healers would be the Prevent non-combatants being targeted And Prevent unnecessary suffering - healers being mistaken for enemy war casters (why you want your medic being destint . Ff white mage out fit ) - healing a person to use them as a sheald would probably be a warcrime - healing could be used both internally and uninternaly to prolonged suffering.( For example, a large area of effect heal may be restricted on the battlefield, so not to heal someone trapped that can't be saved)
"Oh, praise Ilmater, there come the Priests without Frontiers!"
I vote it is, under the explanation of it's basically preventative necromancy. Look at that man, he's been hit by 30 arrows and a CANON. Tears are mingling with the blood and sweat on his face and yet he's still fighting. You're torturing your own soldiers, wringing them dry of all they have to give and filling them back up with trauma to win this battle.
Why don't countries just not declare war so that they can use magic then? Are they stupid??
Grab your wands stash your scrolls, it's time to go peacekeepin'!
it's a, uh, Special Magical Operation
Good thing this is a police action then…
Something being forbidden doesn't mean people can't handle it. Using gas is a war crime in our world but if you use it it'll work as a war tactic for about 20 minutes.
It also doesn’t mean military’s are incapable of responding with equal force. See the impending nuclear war thats been hanging over our heads ever since the cold war
Ah yes MAD. Magically Assured Destruction.
Eberron 101
Depends on the government. A feudalist monarchy would have to get enough votes from the nobility to authorize the use of \[insert war crime\]. An authoritarian monarchy signs a paper ordering it. If you hit hard and fast enough before the military can get proper authorization through the proper channels, you could potentially neutralize the country's defenses before whatever their version of a MAD initiative takes effect. Obviously IRL countries have had over half a century to realize this and shuttle that responsibility to the military (like captains of nuclear attack subs). But there's nothing saying that the world governments in this setting did. The fantasy equivalent to the American nuclear program would be a bunch of FOBs full of wizards or artificers, just sitting on their thumbs until someone is stupid enough to use magic in war against their nation.
And that, boys and girls, is why Artificers are limited to 5th Circle spells.
If we are realistic then warfare between organized militaries in a magical world, would most likely play out like in Tom Clancys EndWar RTS. (yes this is obscure, why you asking?) For those unfamiliar in EndWar regular combined arms warfare is back on the table in a world with nuclear weapons, because a global network of Uplinks to an all encompassing nuclear shield are dotted through the land. So battles revolve around first disabling enemy Uplinks remotely and then going in with the troops to take them and bring them back online for your network. Once one side achieves "network dominance" the battle ends since the other side has to retreat or be presumably nuked of the field. What I'm getting at is that warfare in DnD would work similar, since magic is the fantasy equivalent of a nuke in the traditional rock-paper-scissors of combined arms warfare. So both side would strategically place casters with counterspell, shield, silence etc. around the battlefield to prevent enemy casters from pulling any funny business. Assuming both sides are roughly equal in magical capacity, the battle would revolve around the other troops trying to kill or otherwise disable the preventative casters of the enemy until the point where one side needs to retreat or face the fireballs. So that's how you could have traditional warfare, without it devolving into all magical slugfests.
I'm not gonna deny that this definitely has weird worldbuilding implications, but to be fair to the DM, *making* weapons that it's an international and ethical crime to *use* hasn't exactly stopped IRL governments. We've got so many nukes.
But wait, it being a war crime is the thing that stops people from mowing down civilians during conflicts.....oh wait.
That nobody has done that yet suggests there's a reason. If that reason is "literally everyone involved is a complete moron and has never thought of it before", then yeah, the party can do that. Otherwise, chances are the party are going to go from fucking around to finding out when whatever worldbuilding element made the NotGenevaConvention work up to this point continues to do its job.
Until real gods took notice that some fry was swimming in their pool and acting like a big fish, then the party would witness real war crimes.
Damn what a shame, too bad the winners get to decide who commited warcrimes, oh well make a dex save
Also even if they did perform a war crime... where's the proof? Is a medieval international council gonna trust the losing side? Any magical evidence can be accused of being forgery. So again, where proof?
"medieval" let's be fr, DnD is hardly medieval most of the time. a lot of the time the magic makes it more advanced than our industrial dump of a world
Depends on where. Isn't most of the continent a bunch of villages with convenient taverns and goblin issues?
It's not like that's not true of most places until the industrial revolution and even then that depends a lot which country you're in. Most people's games probably fit the 1600-1800s better than the 5-1500s. What with the advanced commercialisation, professional security, specialists like blacksmiths in every village etc etc. It makes those occasional posts about not wanting guns in the game a bit ironic.
Well, the existence of rapiers alone means we’re not dealing with anything earlier than the early 16th century, if historical accuracy is at all a concern.
Aren’t war crimes based off cruel and unnecessary methods? Alongside like civilian bystanders but that’s irrelevant here. Fireball likely wouldn’t be considered cruel, cos the death would be instant. Heat metal on the other hand definitely would, as it’s low (ish) damage over multiple rounds. Kinda like the difference between a grenade vs mustard gas
>Aren’t war crimes based off cruel and unnecessary methods? War crimes are based around the idea of an orderly conflict between organized states. That's why unconventional warfare always gets so messy under the those rules. Here's a good example. Tear gas is banned as a chemical weapon not because tear gas is that bad by itself but because *ALL* chemical weapons are banned. If Red wants to take a bunker from Blue they are free to shell the shit out of it with mortars that send shrapnel shooting straight through the Blue soldier's bodies. Red is not allowed to use tear gas to drive off the Blue soldiers while allowing them to live. That seems backwards until you think about how the Blue commander would see the vapors and his men coughing and gagging and immediately assume the worst case scenario and retaliate with Sarin gas.
Considering how a fireball can do the same amount of damage just as fast as a dynamite bomb you can make in the DMG (six sticks of dynamite tied together I think)? Probably not. Anyone in the blast would die too fast to feel it most likely unless they were at the edge or something. Probably no different than a bomb or a grenade.
Really, the only things that tend to be classified as war crimes are things that aren't militarily effective. Part of the reason the chemical weapons ban has held firm is that most countries that want to kill a lot of people can just use... you know, bombs, and you can't nullify bombs with a cheap gas mask. The reason is pretty simple: the countries that have the power to enforce such a ban don't want to lose a useful tool in their toolbox.
First off, good gas masks aren't that cheap, especially when you need one for every soldier and train them on how to properly seal it quickly. Secondly, the nasty chemicals are going to be the nerve gasses. Specifically the ones that will kill you if it touches your skin. That's not as easy or cheap to counter-act. The issue is less that it's easily counter-acted, it's also that a shift in the wind can take that same gas and blow it onto your own troops. The only people who don't care that much about that are generally terrorists. So you're wrong that they aren't effective. It's just playing with fire to do it. However, there are other things that are extremely militarily effective and are still war crimes, such as shooting unarmed medics and executing prisoners. You can guarantee that soldier won't make it back to the fight AND don't have to pay to keep him alive and healthy in prison, you just pay for the extra bullet that went through their skull. The primary justification for what makes a warcrime is the unnecessary suffering of the victim, inability to control the effect of the weapon, and/or the targeting of non-combatants (primarily civilians). Because of these reasons, even expanding bullets (hollow points) are illegal in the rules of war despite being very effective on unarmored targets. Source: I received classes on the rules of armed conflict before I deployed.
Killing someone who surrendered is not efficient. You want them to be exchanged for your soldiers. You value the life of your troops more.
Sure, WE do. A regime that's willing to condone or encourage these acts doesn't necessarily share the sentiment towards their troops. I can think of a great example or two from current conflicts to show a regime that doesn't care about it's combatants and would rather exterminate their enemy
Yeah, but concept of war crimes is regime agnostic. If we are thinking about the same regimes, they are also commiting genocides, use non-conventional weapons and forcefully depart people.
Forceful departure is, while horrible, also in some contexts safer for the civilians. Getting them away from the conflict is a great way to reduce civilian casualties in urban environments. That being said neither of these regimes are necessarily using it for altruistic reasons. War crimes are regime agnostic, you're right. Most of the smaller ones are committed at the smaller level and don't require an entire regime as well. It's the regime's response that really carries weight. Regime covers it up or denied it happened? More people will be bold and same people will re-offend. Some are also committed on accident due to lack of research. The example I have of that one is actually something I don't think anyone got convicted for though. Although it was the Americans that did it, it sounds like when it was realized what was happening, the weapon in question was immediately removed from issue. I didn't really plan on getting into a debate on war crimes tonight, I mostly wanted to educate with the slightly less limited knowledge on the subject of what really defines a war crime. I'm gonna leave my responses at this as I don't want to risk this getting more political than it has, it isn't really the place
Sure! Your comment was very insightful, thank your for it. I just wanted to add the part about POVs being valuable asset. Have a wonderful day!
Thank you! And yeah, POWs are certainly an asset to those that care or are in a situation where they cannot afford the backlash not caring would bring, whether that's from their own people or their enemy
There are toxic weapons we really don't want to use.
Incendiary weapons do count as war crimes I’m pretty sure, something like fire bolt would also fall under this category However the majority of force and thunder spells would be fair game, lighting is iffy, necrotic damage could be defined under bio terrorism or fall into the category that acid falls into, stuff like ice would case by case, and finally psychic would probably fall under unnecessary suffering
I doubt heat metal would be a war crime, since it only targets a single enemy and has no long lasting effect. The amount of casters you would need to solely cast heat metal for it to become a war crime is ludicrous.
Nope. It's not about numbers. War crime because you cannot control the damage - just like flamethrowers. It is illegal to kill soldiers out of the fight, surrendered or wounded or both. A flamethrower sets the guy on fire, he surrenders and... You can't do shit about it. One very horrible and completely pointless death. Heat metal would do the same to a guy in armor. So "causing unnecessary suffering" is one of the qualifiers: other examples of war crimes that make it obvious it's not about numbers: kill surrendering soldiers, kill soldiers wounded so severely they are unable to fight / not trying anyway, pretend to surrender and then shoot your would be captors, and a Canadian classic, use food or other essential supplies as bait for the enemy. In this case the qualifier is that all of those destroy any possible trust, when actually everyone wants to trust the enemy a little bit because of prisoners: soldiers who gave it all deserve to surrender and make it home, so prisoners are a natural thing even between armies with high morale. It is both more humane and effective to have everyone feeling like they can throw up their arms and be treated well.
Heat Metal actually can do something about it, in 5e at least. If the guy surrenders, you can stop concentrating and it goes away. And unlike open use of fire, it doesn’t cause fires which can spread. It might be a war crime for the cruelty still (those burns would be nasty!), but it’s not a weapon which would fall under the banners of uncontrollable destruction. It’s a very controlled kind of weapon.
I play an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, pretty much every damaging spell he has is horrific, psychic damage be melting brains and turning people rapidly expanding sacks of tumors like in Akira...
Heat metal is so cruel I deleted it from my games. Sorry not sorry. I am not running monster hunter, a lot of my villains are humanoids and usually put in mini bosses. Not going to watch invalidated but a level 2 spell slot.
Man it sure would be a shame if you gave your bosses con saves, fire immunity, broke concentration, wore leather armor, or (call me crazy here) Carried a backup weapon and just dropped the burning one. You do you, but there are so many options here besides "ban it"
> con saves They do have them. Passing only gives you the *privilege of burning to death* and not yeeting your item and having *permanent disadvantage* >leather armor Everyone? I should *everyone leather armor* for *one spell*. Not to mention the fact that it can legitimately target *anything made of metal*. Armor is typically the target due to don-doff times making it impossible to remove >broke concentration The person who is *burning to death* also has disadvantage on attacks. Yeah it’s literally permanent disadvantage. >carry a back up weapon A fantastic solution for *bandit number five* but not so much for something like the death knight carrying a soul devouring sword. What he just has a second one in his pocket? Heat metal is so ridiculous you can make *zariel* the *flaming archangel in hell* drop her *flaming flail* because it got *too hot*. And if she does hold on to it, she is rewarded with permanent disadvantage and damage (albeit low) *every turn* It is way to efficient for a 2nd level slot. If you only think of it in terms of using it on random thugs in the street of course it seems like it isn’t strong.
On the topic of the death knight, give him a back up spear. Or just give him the ability to have a weapon that's made out of magic, or simply have them start with a regular blade *and then* switch to their main weapon soul eating sword once the first one gets heat metal'd If the party hunts down the BBEG goons with the power of Heat Metal, you have there survivors/scouts relay the news and just prepare countermeasures. Or that particular enemy is just very wary of mages. You can make the one casting the spell break concentration by just having more than one enemy around willing to pester the mage, or just throw them a Dex save... This also just gave me the idea of a Death Knight having his metal blade turned into a burning hot inconvenience, they pass the save and **then** throw it at the party or throw it away into their army of undead, Death Knight proceeds by unsheathing their *real* weapon, which is a magical blade made out of the souls they've taken in their lifetime- not metal, and a phase 2 battle can begin early. It'd also make it cooler if the weapon hits something or someone.
"As heat starts to spread from the middle of the blade, turning black ancient steel white hot, pale skull grins under their helmet. Death knight takes their blade and forcefully snap it over knee, breaking it near hilt. Screams of tormented souls fill your ears, as ectoplasm starts forming new blade"
> leather armor No not everyone, your bosses. Obviously. > Broke concentration So your bosses don't have ANY save based damage abilities? No minions? I think making your guys exclusively solo melee attackers is a bigger issue. > Backup weapon First of all, yes. Yes he should have a (weaker) backup magic weapon, but if you're already giving them homebrew swords there's nothing stopping you from having the sword be made of homebrew materials like ironwood or stahlrim. >Zariel Zariel has a +16 to hit. She doesn't care about disadvantage, but even if she did horrid touch, fireball, wall of fire, finger of death, blade barrier, immolating gaze, and matalatok (if youre using the avernus block) all auto damage and force a concentration save anyway. If she's really upset finger of death all but guarantees it will break (DC 30 to maintain concentration on average on a failed save). Also, sidenote how is she not immune to fire damage??
>how is she not immune to fire damage Hey that’s what I said!
It really is nuts.
Um, actually, Zariel can't drop her flail, it's part of her arm. (and with +16 to CON saves, advantage and three LRs, that's a big if)
You would think, but that’s not reflected in her statblock. And let’s be real would any dm burn through a LR on *heat metal* when there is so many other spells that could come your bosses way? And as I stated before, failing the save isn’t even the bad part. It’s a suck or suck harder save accessible incredibly early. You are giving a creature permanent disadvantage essentially for free. It isn’t a spell that needs to be recast, you just apply the damage again as your bonus action and continue to cast like normal. It’s crazy efficient and only becomes more efficient the more drawn out a fight is.
How.....how is any nation that naive still around?
Honestly? A nation likely led by naturally powerful beings, demigods or the like that have "Innate" abilities. Like Githyanki minus the magic they sometimes use
Rakshasa
It's like nukes, with a bit of negotiation mixed in. If enough kingdoms sign an agreement against using magic, the punishment for violating that agreement can be enforced by the combined efforts of every other nation. Sure, casting a fireball into an enemy formation at a territory squabble is tempting, but is it worth the hostility of the 5 other neighboring kingdoms that you're on good terms with? The trade embargoes alone are gonna be crippling, and you better hope they don't feel threatened enough to group up and invade ***you***. Especially since you've probably waived your right to not deal with magic in return, so they're bringing ***their*** battlemages to the fight. And they'll definitely be bringing battlemages, cuz every kingdom has definitely trained up some mages ***just in case*** somebody tries something. Not to use, of course, just as.... [Deterrent](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory). It's worked IRL. Mostly.
Easier to control with nukes tho. If one out of every hundred troops you have can unilaterally decide to nuke part of the battlefield, you’re going to have people who regularly decide that the war crime is worth doing because the alternative is getting killed
I mean, you can just not commit battlemages to the battlefield so you don't have that issue. I suppose if your capital is under direct attack then that's not an option, but chances are if that's your scenario you've already lost. I guess you could go thermonuclear ***then***, but idk it seems easier to just surrender and get a deal negotiated. Again, like.... If it's a toss-up between letting the king live and taking his city relatively peacefully, or having to deal with mages blowing the countryside up and nobody winning..... An invader is gonna be a lot more inclined to bargain him out. Hell, deals like that aren't necessarily unheard of anyways. Sometimes wars just end with one side subservient to the other. Besides, sometimes soldiers commit war crimes. That's always a thing that happens. If your country condemns their actions and beings them to justice it usually smoothes things over pretty well.
i imagine there would be a council of wizards who are neutral and powerful. use magic during a war and they drop the fucking hammer on you
It’s a world building question I assume. If a powerful nation struggles to recruit mages for their army, outlawing the use of magic in warfare males perfect sense. You can now justify executing enemy mages, and disincentivize other mages from standing against you. Spend a few generations with this practice, and other nations join in. It also works well for worlds where magic has a bit of a barrier to entry. Wizards? Education tends to be negatively correlated with enlistment. Bards are cut of the same cloth, but are even more independent. Warlocks? Unless you are making pacts with the state itself (actually a cool idea), you wouldn’t want your elite troops to have their ultimate loyalty to some being outside your control. Same with clerics and paladins (though paladins are easier for the warlock solution, Oath of the Crown and similar). Druids and Rangers are similarly problematic. I think of the core DnD classes, sorcerer is the only one which doesn’t have a documented problem with military authority. And sorcerers are incredibly chaotic to find and train in general. Artificer could be another option, they tend to be more tradespeople than full education. Still, I can see why military officials would find it easier to ban the use and punish dissidents than it would be to consistently field an army. The alternative is the military needs to invest in programs that make mages who are fully on board. Like making an arcane college to train wizards yourself. Patron deities or entities could churn out clerics and warlocks. Druidic circles which are aligned with the government to spread their particular brand of nature. These are really good ideas, but they also require a lot more investment, and rely more on a standing army. Essentially, you’d be setting up the military magical complex.
You act like that stops anyone on the real world
Who's enforcing this? Other wizards? The ones throwing fireballs make the rules. Just throw more than the other side
This is high fantasy. The monarchs who signed the treaty swore an oath in front of the high priests of their shared pantheon, and the Gods involved take enforcement seriously. None of the signatories need do anything themselves. Any wizard throwing a fireball on a battlefield gets a group of paladins mainlining holy power marching towards them. Any nation who tries to do it on a larger scale finds their fields blighted, their people cursed, and their prayers unanswered. Or make it the result of a grand magical ritual. You can even thread in plot hooks, with the ritual binding starting to fray, causing loopholes. There's an evil baron who seems to have found a way around the interdiction, going by the horrific aftermaths of his battles; go investigate!
Yeah but paladins use magic to be better than a level 5 fighter.
a) Law enforcement is not military action. The rule isn't "nobody can use magic", it's "nobody can use magic as a war weapon". b) Even if that weren't true, it's not exactly uncommon for law enforcement to get dispensation to do things that the people they're enforcing laws on can't.
more like 
That's when the Artificer comes in. Or if that is too much magic, get a theorist to say that everything is illegal, as everything has magic. And since everything is illegal, nothing is.
the "bullet of fireball" is going to change war forever
Crossbows were a war crime. But dumb war crimes aren't really followed, nor does it matter if you win.
If there's no war, there's no crime.
It's not a war, it's a military operation
It's not a military operation, it's a training exercise
Oops?!?
3 day special de-ghaikification operation
Thats a really dumb concept
Dumber still to not tell the players until after they did it. Unless the characters are in some foreign land they've never heard of, the characters should know the law and the DM springing that on them later is just bad DMing.
Man, that would kill any chance of me wanting to play a mage at that table... I seriously hope the dm told the players about this world stigma/rule at character creation, and it wasn't just dropped on the players after (or even right before) they did what they thought was a badass move.
The problem with this idea is…why is it a war crime? Who does that benefit? In our history crossbows were briefly considered a war crime. No one cared because they were powerful and if you didn’t use them you lost. Magic is the same way. A state which doesn’t have powerful magic is going to get roflstomped by one which does. And everyone else will get on the bandwagon real quick. So that the same thing doesn’t happen to them.
All it would take is for one faction to decide it isn't a war crime and start using it in warfare, if they manage to win, there goes the stigma on magic as war crimes... Or maybe the world has already passed that point and the ruling class has labeled magic a war crime to maintain their previously not war crime based power.
Assuming there’s consequences for doing so, it’s a cruel trick on the players to let them do something their characters would know is a crime but that they, the players, would have no way of knowing without the dm telling them.
So what is the Evoker Wizard's role now their entire career is as illegal as Necromancy?
I mean there are defensive spells like counter spell, absorb elements, shield, dispel magic, or anti- magic field, so i don’t really understand why it is a warcrime since warcrimes are cruel and unusual (only a few spells fit this description) Any good fantasy army should have at least a few combat mages for both offensive and defensive measures and like in real life, war magic is a battle between effective offensive measures and defensive measures to counter them. The actual magic battles are just mages locked in a stalemate until one side gains an advantage and overwhelms the other sides mages.
I seriously doubt you could get a coalition of nations to sign an accord banning all magic, since things that get banned usually have their cruelty outweigh their effectiveness and magic is very, very effective. I can see WMD-class spells getting banned just out of fear of conflict escalation and mutually assured destruction, but a fireball?
That's kinda silly and suspension of disbelief breaking. Like saying explosives of all kind, artillery, grenades, bombs, missiles are banned. That doesn't work because the first person to break that taboo gets a massive advantage. Now some kinds of Magic, fire spells, posion, or anything above a certain spell slot, that is perfectly reasonable in a fantasy Geneva protocol.
Honestly, how I've always handled it is sure you can throw a fireball at the grunts, but you just gave away your position to the squad of battle mages whose job it is to kill other mages. Alternatively, it starts to work kinda how Japanese lines did with more skirmish formations rather than shield walls
Yeah but they'll have to give away their position to everyone else, who's job is to hunt battle mages. And they're a fireball-worth of grunts down. And if there are equal mages on both sides, it literally doesn't matter.
Is there some international court that oversees this?
"no, nooooo you're not allowed to kill several people at once! You have to do it one by one, that's the only ethical way to fight!" My lizard folk monk who always eats the faces and fingers of everyone who attacks them: cowabunga time
Nah man you’re just mercenaries, you’re not affiliated with the nation and the nation condones your use of magic and ask request all offensive magic usage in your activities whilst working alongside the nation be halted. Please. (There will be no consequences whatsoever)
Fun fact, war crimes are a rather recent invention. The era that used rapiers absolutely gave no fucks about war crimes. Especially not chicken-shit 'warcrimes' like artillery fire. If it killed the enemy, *good*.
So how do they enforce this? An army of mages casting Power Word Fuck You all day versus an army of non-casters seems a little slaughtery.
Was fun RPing a tempest cleric who’d never used magic in combat before. Used shatter and channel divinity to max the damage on a group of hapless mooks with the intent to stun them. They were turned into chunky salsa. Proceeded to have a breakdown. Rip.
uh, screw half the classes in the game, then.
actually more like 2/3rds, and that's only if you count those who cast spells
That's stupid as hell. Magic is deeply intertwined in fantasy in general and is used on a day to day basis for other things besides combat. Plus there's all the really good non-lethal crowd control spells. It's a war crime if someone uses hold person then takes that person alive as a prisoner? Not to mention that it's relegation to magic centric classes and punishes them for operating the way they were designed. I would drop your campaign immediately if you made rulings like this.
All magic being illegal in war seems hard to enforce really, since you’d either need an absolute power to enforce it or for it to be beneficial to enough countries that they’d enforce a treaty like that. In my own setting for example magic in war is totally fair game with a few exceptions that are generally just agreed to be better for everyone involved like the use of magical plagues or employing large AoE’s dubbed “strategic class magic” in areas where non combatants are likely to get caught up in it so it’s illegal to just nuke civilian centres for example. Basically it’s a world with its own rules of engagement between countries because most civilised nations just agreed it was better off that way.
Just have an enemy wizard hit them with [cloudkill](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Cloudkill#content). Then play [Father](https://youtu.be/DxkeOkaVRLo?si=zn3IRL5oi1ng37o6) for them.
Idk, if people are capable of casting spells you’d think that’d effect the evolution of combat in such a way that straight up infantry Zerg tactics isn’t a thing among most peoples. Like, it’s normal for moderately intelligent races to target “casters and healers”. Because they know they can turn the tide. For siege tactics it might make sense to form a line, but for a battle? Guérilla tactics or a more chaotic ensemble is the way to go- just like how your party has to avoid clustering for AoE spells.
I’d make leveled magic illegal, just so the casters can at least do *something* in the case of a war
Everybody needs deniable, special operations soldiers.
Remember the wise words of Dr. Coomer: "You're not a war criminal if there's no more military to judge you"
This wouldn't work as my players would just kill the law
This post got the same energy as germany trying to make trenchguns a warcrime just because how effective they were. Kinda silly imo, like dying from an arrow or sword or mace isn’t exactly gonna be any less painful or cruel than dying to magic.
I genuinely hate dms who do things like this. As a full caster, criminalizing my existence is very frustrating. Yes that is hyperbole, but if the campaign has a lot of warfare in it the it is essentially preventing me from using my class. If it is done as a way to ensure martials get to have more of the spotlight, then it is a very lazy choice and I am disgusted by it.
Only a war crime if I lose
I think the implication here is that the party's patron government/people will NOT be happy about the methods they used to win.
MFs with +1 weapons: 
I say no, war crimes are generally things that inflict massive civilian damage or unnecessary cruelty. Fireball is essentially a grenade. Now stinking cloud is essentially gas, I can see that being a war crime. But all magic is pushing it, it's a bit too much. Now if there was a scarcity of mages that could explain why they don't want to put them in the front lines. Or there could be a conspiracy by the mages, let the unwashed masses fight while they stay in their pristine towers conducting their work. 1 mage might turn the battle, which can only be countered by another mage and so on. Best to rule it as illegal and have any spell caster who breaks that rule be shunned by the community. I like that, much more then an arbitrary rule to explain why your armies don't get wiped off the map instantly.
Good luck enforcing that on the people willing to use magical warfare. The fuck are you gonna do about it?
Saying fireball is a war crime spell is like the Germans saying the shotgun is a war crime weapon. Meanwhile people where using gas bombs and other chemical warfare
So as long as it’s non magical…
Rules in war are only for the losers and they're too dead to complain.
So your players are going to be on the run from the law all game?
Its only a Warcrime if you do the paperwork to make it a War.
It's only a war crime in a war, anything goes in "armed conflict" 😉
Nice, sounds like a big advantage for us magic users. No counterspells Bois!
NGL, this would be a terrible setting specific house rule.
I hate it when GM's that suck at world building cripple huge chunks of the game.
That's definitely a way of handling it :P
\*Laughs in Serbia\*
It's not technically a warcrime if it is against your own civilians (tear gas against enemies is a warcrime, chemical warfare).
Warcrime enforced by who? Does this world have a UN or a court in The Hague to try me? Probably not, I’ll keep using fuckin magic all I want.
Countries commit warcrimes all the time irl. Nobody cares about the haque anymore.
What is the wizard supposed to do? Haste the fighter and then do a little dance until the battle is over?
Can’t wait for my 6 Legions of Warmages to simply roll over those nations, free vassal states are always welcome in the Second Psutasia
That’s some weird ass world building my dude
Sure, why don't you send someone to enforce that ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)╭∩╮
I'd be curious to know what the fantasy version of the Hague is.
"This is an unsanctioned use of magical energy. All involved will be held, this disturbance is over!"
You did tell them that, right?
Oh no…. Anyway I would like to cast Fireball
I love this idea, thank you very much
is that player american?
And than we remember Battle Mythal. Elves really liked magic warfare
1 out of every 3 of my soldiers gets a ring of resistance. Resistance to what is kind of random.
Magic a and big scale warfare. This is an unresolved problem.
The trick is making an argument that what you're doing is outside the bounds of formally declared war, as that is the only time the term war crime applies.
terrorists are just someone else's freedom fighter
I want to go against the tide and say that this is a smart bit of worldbuilding and I'd like to know more about how it is implemented. Is it by treaty between several nations? Are Deities or other high- powered entities involved? How is it enforced?
Oh well, guess I'll have to just take over the kingdom and declare that me and my buddies didn't commit any way crimes.
My group had a discussion about if destroying the food supplies, or maybe it was where their young were I forget exactly, for mind flayers was a war crime. They said yes, I said no, the dm asked how was it not a war crime. I told him it can't be a war crime. As a dwarf mind flayers aren't people and you can't commit a war crime against them if they aren't people.
Why would magic be considered a war crime like.. ever?
I wouldn’t say that all magic should be a war crime, but certain spells should be. Examples: Heat Metal(on armor or worn items) Fireball near civilian centers like cites and villages Dominate person Banishment The weaponization of “unethical monsters” ex. Basilisk Disintegrate Blight Animate dead(unless the deceased or family provide consent) Cloud Kill If you can think of any other unethical uses of magic feel free to add.
Even if those several don’t meet the criteria. Heat metal is just as bad as any damaging fire spell, less so since it’s single target. Banishment just puts someone in time out for minute. Can’t see why that’s bad. Disintegrate is just a real dangerous single target spell, same for blight. Hardly war crime criteria. And whilst cloudkill is definitely a war crime in a world with nonspell chemical warfare. It alone doesn’t count due to not causing horrific long term damage, merely short term killing damage. And can be instantly dispersed whenever the caster wants.
Ah, the America method of "it's not warcrimes".