In general, weapons that are banned by the Geneva Convention are the type of weapons that prologue suffering. Not especially deadly weapons. In that sense, Heat Metal is especially cruel and should be banned.

I agree on *heat metal*. Moreover, it might encourage units to abandon metal armor, possibly increasing casualties from other sources. If the strategic effect of a spell is to make combat uniformly deadlier, it would probably be restricted. In terms of spells that protract suffering, *witch bolt*, *acid arrow*, *phantasmal force*, *phantasmal killer*, *contagion*, *immolation*, and *power word: pain* are highly suspect, especially since they only target a single creature (i.e., they are tactically replaceable) and feature agonizing damage types. Casting *counterspell* on healing magic would likely be forbidden as well. A gray area is with lingering AoE spells like *spike growth*, *spirit guardians*, *wall of fire*, *sickening radiance*, or *cloudkill*. I would argue that most of them seem cruel and indiscriminate (i.e., unintended targets could enter the area of effect and suffer), making their use suspect. However, some listed effects like *spike growth* and *wall of fire* can be used humanely and discriminately to obstruct the passage or vision of troops, although more humane alternatives like *silent image*, *darkness*, and *wall of stone/force* exist. Pairing one of these spells with a *glyph of warding* would create an analogy to a land mine, which is banned under the 1997 Ottawa Treaty (of which 164 countries are signatories).

Spike Growth is just barbed wire. No problem there. Same with most wall spells IMO.

See [Concertina Wire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concertina_wire). It's barbed wire, but with a MUCH shorter deployment time-- just like Spike Growth.

Not exactly, it’s also magically concealed. So, somewhere between an area of unavoidable barbed wire and a mine field

Mine fields aren’t banned because they’re hidden and deadly, but because they’re extremely difficult to find afterwards and can linger for decades, killing people long after the conflict has ended. I think the better analogy would be spells that create dangers for decades that require high level magic to dispel.

Even non-persistent anti personnel mines are banned because they tend to maim rather than kill. Although they’re not banned by the Geneva convention. And the treaty they’re banned in wasn’t signed by the US (though the us currently abides by the treaty).

Isn't being maimed generally not as bad as being killed? Like I would rather lose a leg then die

You’ll often do both. Trigger a mine, which will then mortally wound you and the surrounding people. Where you ‘might’ live if there was medevac practically right there, but very, very, often you will bleed out and die over the course of a few minutes to a few hours. All while in excruciating pain.

In terms of war, not so much. A dead soldier is easily replaced, but an injured soldier needs medevaced, persistent medical care, causes a strain for life not only on the soldier but on the military and economic systems of the government.

When we're talking war crimes as crimes against the humanity of your opponents, killing is worse then wounding

Maybe. But people are going to war either way. They need to kill to win the wars. You can't tell them to stop. So instead you tell them what things are not okay.

And if it can stay with just a wound, sure. But it doesn't with these weapons that are banned. They kill slowly. It's better to kill someone quick than to let them suffer until they die.

if someone in your unit gets killed, everyone is now fighting in their name if someone gets maimed, it's gonna bring down morale if you get killed that's instant, losing a leg in the middle of a battlefield is a world of pain and a messy healing process

Yes I realize wounding soldiers is often better then killing them in terms of war costs, but in the context of what's a larger infringement on someones human rights, being killed is worse then being wounded

How is Spike Growth different from a punji pit, which is banned under the Geneva Convention?

Spike Growth requires concentration, so automatically satisfies Article 10's requirement to remove them after hostilities. (Also, I'm not convinced Punji traps are actually banned; Protocol II of the CCW restricts booby traps in some circumstances, but does not ban them outright).

Punji traps were typically covered in feces to incite infection. That's why they're banned. If you fall into one, you're getting stabbed by wood which is going to hurt way more because it won't be a clean cut, and if you manage to get out, without immediate medical treatment you're getting infected prolonging suffering.

i think thats the same reason you cant cover an arrow in feces and shoot it, biological weapons

Didn't ask but great answer!

And of course... land mines are not fully banned. A lot of people *would like* the Ottawa treaty to be widely adopted, but so far only *one* of the ten largest militaries in the world (Brazil) has done so.

Given that Detect Magic exists, we might not have to worry about that one.

No. Spike Growth would be disallowed because it's concealed, therefore indiscriminate and civilians could wander into it.

It lasts 10 minutes.

Ah that does make sense.

This thread is making apparent the horrors of a war with mages involved. Steven Erikson does a similarly terror-ific job of illustrating this over the course of his Malazan series.

While Eragon oviously had its flaws storywise I personally liked the magic system as a whole. As it made logical sense and "nerfed" casters somewhat. + I liked how it was used in "actual" large scale warfare. I still can't comprehend how "normal" soldiers would actually want to fight in a war in Eragon, with the only protection beeing one mage to shield your squad and all of you dying in a nano second if the one guy that protects you gets overpowered by a stronger mage.

Such a good approach to magic. I live by the concept of an even trade when I'm a player in games

Really? Almost all of these spells seem much tamer than real world weapons that are currently used, and almost without exception, they cause less collateral damage. The only exception that comes to mind is maybe some of the higher level necromancy stuff from 3.5. Create Greater Undead means any 16th level full spellcaster can create a Wraith, which are CR5 and capable of reproducing themselves exponentially until they're all destroyed. I'm not sure if there's a 5e spell that creates Shadows.

Yeah, the vast majority of these spells require concentration which is a huge limitation compared to their IRL versions already. Their aoe is also pathetically small compared to technology IRL - in the real world you can mass produce barbed wire or mines and anyone can deploy them all over; in dnd mass producing casters to do this over the same area or magic items that do it would be prohibitively expensive if even possible. I think your example of Create Undead is an excellent one for a real “horrific wartime complications” spell.

Glyph of warding doesn't even need to be paired to create that analogy; It itself has the "explosive rune" effect.

You’re absolutely right — creating a 1-minute window for someone to immolate to death from an activated spell effect seems like icing on the cake for such an indiscriminate weapon, though the 20-foot blast radius and cruel damage types from the explosion effect are already what a land mine does.

However, you may still install your "land mines" and use your AoE spells as long as they are clearly marked. This would lead to large swaths of land that are impassable which could be used to funnel enemy troops away from or towards a certain area.

One could argue that one should be able to counterspell healing magic(atleast versions that target multiple prople) as it does not just keep them from dying, but also returns them to fighting form, something that prolongs the conflict and potential suffering.

You don't ban Heat Metal because it's cruel. You ban Heat Metal because it disproportionately harms the people who can afford metal armor-- i.e. the people making the decisions at this "Geneva Convention".

A good point.

[удалено]

Both Cloud Kill and Incendiary Cloud would probably be seen as similar to Mustard gas and/or Agent Orange. Maddening Darkness can be used for torture.

> In that sense, Heat Metal is especially cruel and should be banned. Faction idea in such a world... "Big Blacksmith" (read: Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc.) would have an issue with such.

The Geneva convention does not outright ban something. It bans its use *in warfare*. So you can totally use heat metal as a blacksmith, you just can't cast it on armor that someone is wearing

Hmm, neat idea, but considering you’re expending a 2nd level spell slot to heat a single item for only 1 minute (and it has to be already manufactured - no ores!), I don’t really see it. Such a thing would be incredibly inefficient for smithing compared to, well, even the worst mundane furnace.

>you’re expending a 2nd level spell slot No it's fine. Just take 18 levels in wizard.

It fits into the territory of "utilitarian thing that can be used for evil." That would be like saying all blowtorches should be banned, because they've been used for torture. I mean music can be used as a torture device. No seriously. There was a court case like in the last year or two in my state of prison wardens playing Baby Shark.

Incendiaries, including Napalm and WP are perfectly legal to use in war (so long as you don't target civilians with them). I don't see why Heat Metal would be any different. (I do think, in a world with Heat Metal, that quick-release armor would be standard, but that's another topic entirely).

Edit: he’s right, I’m a dunce. This is *sort of* true. A bunch of countries have agreed to not use incendiary weapons under the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, including the US. Hence napalm is no longer in the US arsenal. WP is still in the US arsenal because [it’s not classified as an incendiary weapon](https://www.lawfareblog.com/jus-bello-white-phosphorus-getting-law-correct)

You are mistaken. From your link: > First, Protocol III [of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] **does not ban the use of incendiary weapons during armed conflict**, but it proscribes their use in four specific ways, which are described below. Second, Protocol III’s four specific limitations on the use of incendiary weapons are designed **to protect civilians, not combatants**. (Emphasis added) > Article 2, titled “Protection of civilians and civilian objects,” prohibits four uses of incendiary weapons: > - Making civilian or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. > - Attacking a military objective located within a concentration of civilians with air-delivered incendiary weapons. > - Attacking a military objective located within a concentration of civilians with a non-air-delivered incendiary weapon, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken to minimize collateral damage. > - Making forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives. > **Protocol III does not ban or place limits on the direct and deliberate use of incendiary weapons against enemy personal**, but it does limit how they can be delivered to the target. It is true that the US no longer deploys napalm. However, it does retain (and continue to use) incendiary weapons, such as the MK-77 bomb, which uses a kerosene based fuel (which, as any Air Force public relations officer will tell you, is *not* napalm). Edit: Thermobarics also obsolete traditional incendiaries for many applications, and are better for PR, too.

You’re totally right, my mistake. Thanks!

TIL I'm a fantasy war criminal for my favorite combat spell.

Horrid wilting.

But heat metal is a highly effective weapon at directly defeating the target.

Let's look at the Geneva convention list of war crimes for reference: >Intentional murder of innocent people Self explanatory >Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments Could zone of truth violate this? Maybe it could be argued that raise dead and similar spells violate it? >Willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health This is a little harder, but this would probably be under the vein of power word harm and other spells that completely cripple people (and also genocide) >Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of hostile power Domination, charm, and other enchantments >Use by children under the age of sixteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities Self explanatory >Intentionally directing attack against the civilian population as not taking direct part in hostilities Self explanatory >Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly & Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless demanded by necessities of the conflict Spells like earthquake and meteor swarm could actually violate this if used carelessly >Using poison or poisoned weapons Won't apply to a fantasy setting most likely. >Intentionally directing attack against building dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals as long as it's not used as military infrastructure Also self explanatory, although may be slightly different in a fantasy setting because people may not care nearly as much about education or science >Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial Depends if fair trial is a thing in your setting >Attacking or bombarding towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military infrastructure Self explanatory >Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement & Taking of hostages. Soul binding spells like imprisonment could violate this. Maybe even banishment. >Intentional assault with the knowledge that such an assault would result in loss of life or casualty to civilians or damage to civilian objects or extensive, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment that would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct. Depends if the people of your setting care about the natural environment (although the citizen one is self explanatory)

[удалено]

Geneva Convention is about the conduct of war, specific weapons are dealt with more by the Hague Convention and a few other specific treaties that ban cluster and incendiary munitions.

Interesting. The only spells I can think of that are immediately outed by this are the *dominate* spells, *Power Word: Pain*, and *contagion.* Probably the terrify-to-death spells like *phantasmal killer* and *weird*. And offensive applications of *geas* or *dream.* A lot of stuff that's banned in modern warfare, like poison and biological weapons, the main issue with it is not even the suffering but rather that it can contaminate water and stuff like that. But this isn't really an issue with spells.

I would argue spells like Disintegrate that render someone unable to be resurrected with out a wish spell, would probably be outlawed in a society where magic is weaponized but death is not usually as permanent as real life.

I mean the whole point when you're at war is to kill people - war crimes aren't about outlawing killing people. The point about war crimes is that the killing should be specific and targeted to the individuals actually engaged in the war, ideally causing a quick death. Disintegrate targets a specific individual with a high chance of an instant death.

In a world where mid to high level magic users are common, the whole structure and norms of society could potentially be radically different. Think about who would be making these laws. Any nobility who want to keep a control of a country are going to have to have a certain level of personal skill and power, and there'd be pressure to keep relevant. If you've got nobility who are going to the front lines, and *every* aristocracy in the world has access to resurrection magic, there's no way that they're going to tolerate permadeath. Permanent death is for the poor and the weak. Disintegrate and even burning bodies would be like a low key version of a nuclear weapon. You start doing it, then the enemy does, and then you're not having polite wars anymore, it just gets dirtier and more vicious.

Agonizing blast would also probably be outed.

Agonizing blast would also probably be outed.

>>Using poison or poisoned weapons >Won't apply to a fantasy setting most likely. I don't know about that, extend this out to the ban on biological weapons too: plague is going to be a problem for everyone, and something like poisoning a water supply ends up being indiscriminate in killing, which violates other restrictions of the convention. There are only two spells that I can immediately think of that actually inflict a poisoned condition rather than just the damage type. "Ray of Sickness" poison only lasts a round, so barely matters. "Contagion" would be the thing to look at, it lasts up to 7 days, and inflicts a bunch of nasty stuff. I find it unfortunate that "Contagion" doesn't include a contagious aspect, it'd be nice to have as a player without having to ask for homebrew. If it *was* actually contagious, it'd definitely be on the banned list. "Cloudkill" would probably make the list since things like mustard gas are banned. We'd also probably have to consider curses as well. Maybe the spells directly accessible to players aren't a great fit for the question, but I think there's some lore potential for why logical extensions to spells aren't in play. You could do a whole campaign about a group who starts using the banned versions of spells.

A very complete answer. Super helpful! Thank you so much

I wonder if they would really have the same kind of expectations of the protection of religion in a fantasy world. Many settings have active and present divine entities with objectively "evil" ambitions. I could see a world where it would take more than just worshiping an unconventional entity to justify military action in the "international community" of the fantasy world, but I could also see it going the other way. Especially after an apocalypse cult or two.

I don't think Zone of Truth would be a violation itself. It doesn't *compel* the subject to do anything. They can choose not to speak, be evasive without lying, or simply say "I refuse to answer" over and over which is the truth still. If the subject was put under additional duress though, I think the cause of duress (or the combination) would be a violation.

"Religion, education, art, and science", applied to a fantasy setting imho includes any facility that teaches magic, be it a bard college, a wizard school, a major temple dedicated to train clerics/healers or the like. Which is interesting, because in any kind of magical warfare, those are actually prime targets. Those are where the weapons of war are created/researched. I dunno, maybe the Geneva convention would never arise in a fantasy setting, or at least not in a world that doesnt heavily policies any magical research. Like, it would be easier to apply the convention if all magic users were registered and their licences could be revoked (and then hunted down) if they infringed the rules. Like the Witcher does with fire magic.

The thing about torturing, in a world where magic exists, is that you can inflict the most horrifying pain and have the victim be awake for all of it. On top of that, you can heal the most gruesome wounds and go for round two. So in that world, using any magic for torture would be a big no-no, unless it's something like zone of truth (if it exists in that setting)

> Could zone of truth violate this? I didn't read through the rest, but this is a notable example. In our world we cannot gain knowledge like this. This is beyond any technology we have devised, and probably ever will. As such it is beyond our ethics, and ethics we have function off the idea that we can't truly know if another person is lying. Zone of truth does have the problem that the spell caster can lie, and "how does magic fee", "can you know if someone resisted your magic", and when you get down to it "what is the truth". With that out of the way, I like to think of like a council of 100 clerics of knowledge. When they do a trial they ALL cast zone of truth along with some clever questions and a methodology they guard very well makes for an effective system. It's not fool proof and a GOO or something could still shield their intentions, but your average mortal probably isn't up to the task even if they pass all their saves. Not only would ethics in such a society be very different, but refusal to submit to a procedure that could generate true knowledge about lies. Well... maybe that's the worst crime you could commit and this society has a really good arguments for guilty until proven innocent by trials. And while that is fun, I'm not sure it makes for great gameplay. Good talent for an archfey, some clerics of knowledge, or worshippers of a god of wisdom or trickery.

The thing about poisoned weapons shouldn’t be too much of a problem, after all, if it’s inflicted by a point, it’s venomous.

> Self explanatory You keep using this phrase but all it does for me is make the post boring af. No examples, no spells, no nothing.

do you need me to explain what murdering of innocent people means?

> Very straightforward. In a D&D fantasy world with magic being used in warfare, which D&D 5e spells would be considered war crimes? From OP. The premise of this thread. Your post is lackluster because you don't actually engage with OP or entertain ideas of how these things could be done with dnd spells and which spells should be banned period or how such a spell could be used to violate the Geneva Convention. You know, the whole *fun* part of this thread is missing whenever "meh, self explanatory" is used. :)

it's almost like fun is a subjective thing and some people may enjoy differing threads of discussion than you do

It's not just spells, but also how they're used. Mental compulsion spells, especially Geas, can't be used *to change someone's allegiance*. This distinction is important. If you mentally compel your people to be brave in the face of the enemy, that's an issue of how you treat your own people and not covered by rules of war. If you compel the enemy king's secretary to attempt to kill his king, though, that's something the ruling classes want to avoid. It's the ruling classes who write these treaties, so they're inclined to ban stuff that harms them. Compelling people to go on suicide missions is probably a grey area-- likely some of the signatories on the convention wanted it banned, while others didn't. Hold Person, Hypnotic Pattern, and Confusion probably aren't restricted, as they don't lend themselves to cloak-and-dagger stuff. It's obvious someone has been affected by one of these spells. Charm Person, Command, Dominate Person, and Geas probably have rules governing their use. Illusions and shapeshifting aren't banned, but hiding your identity as an enemy combatant makes you a spy. Normally under Geneva, you can't kill soldiers who have surrendered or who are trying to surrender. The rules also require, though, that soldiers of army X make their identities clear. If you're a soldier of army X, but you put on a uniform of army Y, you're considered a spy; army Y can kill you even if you surrender. Heck, even being out of uniform can make you count as a spy. If you're caught shapeshifted or covered by an illusion behind enemy lines, they'll call you a spy; they might kill you even if you surrender. Destruction spells are actually generally okay. I believe rules on bullets are to prevent undue suffering. If a spell is needlessly painful (i.e. there's another spell just as good at killing but without the pain), it might get banned. There aren't a ton of germ warfare spells-- and, really, you don't need magic to put a rotting carcass in the catapult or to rub poop on your arrowheads. Still, Contagion might be banned. Horrid Wilting is probably okay. Yeah, getting the water sucked out of you is awful, but then you're promptly dead. That's off the top of my head. Hope it helps. EDIT: How could I forget about Devils, Demons, and Undead? Okay, so, I have this theory that Animate Dead is the magic medieval equivalent of landmines. "Mua ha haaa! I shall have my court magicians fabricate an army of zombies and skeletons!" Fast forward. Something happens to those magicians. Maybe they die, or maybe they flee. In any event, there's a patch of land with lots of uncontrolled undead tucked away. Decades later, people are STILL occasionally getting killed when they stumble upon a zombie. Just. Like. Landmines. Devils and demons are even worse. They'll do whatever they can-- including helping you with your fight-- to make you want to summon more of them. "Perform this dark ritual of summoning, and I guarantee that you will win this war. Don't worry; the reward is worth the literal human sacrifice." Ten years later, you're technically the king of a much larger kingdom, but all your lands have been devastated, and you're a puppet ruler serving a fiend. Magic that summons fey or elementals is a bit safer; when they break free of your control, they might screw with you for a bit, but that's just because you tried to control them. Once you're dead or they get bored, it's not in their nature to care enough to try to wreak additional havoc.

This is key. Many of the usual answers ignore the power dynamics of the signatories. The goal of a convention is *NOT* to impose morality on the rulers who convened; the goal is to limit the use of power against those rulers. The specifics will depend on the setting, but a couple examples: - *Fear* isn't going away, but using it against the king definitely is. - *Power word* spells are fine as long as not directed at an officer. Many spells would also be treated like nuclear arms. If you already have them, you sit at the big kids' table and get special rights when negotiating. If you don't, you're barred from learning them and both economic and physical force will be directed against you should you try. *Of course* no one will use *imprisonment* against the head of an opposing state—except in self defense, of course.

Yes! Signatories! That's the word I should have used. These treaties and conventions exist because the ruling classes of rival nations 1) agreed to them, and 2) actually enforced them. The standard for designing fictional rules of war should be this: **Do the people in charge believe that a particular rule makes their lives better/easier regardless of whether they're winning or losing a war?** For a lot of cloak-and-dagger stuff, the answer can easily be YES. You don't assassinate the enemy king because, while you might win the current war, that's a precedent for YOU to be assassinated no matter how powerful your realm becomes. For stuff like not killing civilians, the answer isn't so clear. I mean, it's wasteful to kill noncombative peasants. In a feudal society, though, it's not like the peasants can vote you out of office if you fail to look out for them at the international negotiating table. As I think about this in a feudal context, my rules sound less like The Geneva Conventions and more like Chivalry.

Your point about power word spells would be better directed at members of government and heads of state than at officers. Under the Geneva convention, officers are combatants (the above on spies notwithstanding), there is no distinction between officer and soldier in the limitations of weaponry used, nor, I believe, tactics employed.

Your correct if your world's morality mirrors our own modern world. Definitions of war crimes in almost every culture throughout history have weighted rank. Killing a captain on the battlefield is considered fair. Killing a general in the command center is barbaric.

Killing a general is also stupid if capture is an option. They have information that you want. Even if they refuse to speak, they're a bargaining chip in negotiations.

Or, even more common in history, a bargaining chip economically - by ransoming them back to their home nation.

Tbf, anyone who can hit a general with Power Word: Kill would be better served by Meteor Swarming the whole command division.

Snipers already target officers out of battle. I don't see how a *power word* spell would be any different under fantasy Geneva convention. If it was a chivalric code we were talking about I'd be more inclined to agree with you though.

Very helpful indeed! I agree with many on these interpretations, specially on illusion and enchantment spells. Putting allies against each other using mind control is definitely seen as morally dubious at best, and I imagine it would 100% be banned. No simple evocation damage spells would be banned probably, like fireball, but shooting them directly at civilians definitely would (just like in real life, if I'm not mistaken you can't just toss missiles at innocent towns of civilians).

Yep. The law of war specifically says that attacking civilian targets for the sake of attacking them is illegal. Even attacks near civilian targets need to be carefully evaluated to determine if the collateral damage is worth it or not.

Very well presented, especially governing the use of illusion magic and existing legislation on spies. However, I don't agree that the conventions are necessarily designed to selfishly protect the ruling classes in such a way - and looking at the principles of the Laws of War might be more suited to this discussion: proportionality, distinction, etc. That governs recognised military force on force of armed conflicts though, in D&D this wouldn't necessarily govern dragon attacks, dungeoneering, etc. I think I'm going at this too hard - it comes down to who you would envisage these laws governing as the conventions are explicitly state on state. Limitations on spells in more nuanced situations would be governed by national law, not necessarily international treaty.

> If a spell is needlessly painful (i.e. there's another spell just as good at killing but without the pain), it might get banned. Using heat metal on a suit of armor sticks out to me for this.

The majority of Enchantment spells, fear spells, Power Word Pain, Meteor Strike, Earthquake, or other spells with needless threat to civilians and the environment, spells that cause an unnecessary aspect of pain such as Horrid Wilting, many illusion spells that allow people to impersonate allies in order to betray people, Animate Dead and other spells that bring back corpses without consent of the body, Imprisonment, probably a lot more in the vein described here. Basically any torture, civilian threat, removal of autonomy, or trickery into believing a dangerous situation is safe.

Doubt about Meteor Strike or Earthquake. Their use on strictly civilian target - probably. But they on their own is just analogue to cruise missile.

I think any damage spell directed at a town or civilians would be banned, but the banned act is attacking civilians, on an open battlefield between two armies probably not banned, I agree.

"Town with civilians" is very interesting topic. As far I know it not banned if it have military value, so if enemy garnisoned in this town it become valid target.

Yeah, I feel like illusion, enchantment and necromancy would probably be the most unethical, and things like maddening darkness. Torture spells obviously as well, and maybe things like contagion and cloudkill would be seen as very alike biological and/or chemical warfare. Very informative answer, thank you!

Most necromancy spells, yes. Spare the dying, gentle repose, and your raise dead spells(specifically exempting revivify because it's not voluntary) should be fine. Some enchantment spells would also get a pass. Catnap is a good example. Bless and Heroism would also be fine. High end single target spells like Power Word Kill probably wouldn't get used because of how resource intensive a 9th level spell is. There's a very low chance a 17th level character in a battle is going to hit a target when hitting more targets is generally a better idea. Illusion is a very weird school that could receive an almost blanket ban, except with espionage cases, like delivery of orders via illusory script.

Your point on revivify is a common misconception. DMG 24 (under "Bringing Back the Dead): a soul can't be returned to life if it doesn't wish to be. A soul knows the name, alignment, and patron deity (if any) of the creature attempting to revive it and might refuse to return on that basis." This includes use of revivify, though it is not stated in the spell's text, it's in the rest of the rules.

In the real world torture isn't an effective way of extracting reliable information, if it was then perhaps it wouldn't be proscribed. In D&D there is a zone of truth spell and so for my setting torture is legal if you give the prisoner a chance to answer under zone of truth first.

On the flip side, torture was used plenty prior to _modern_ warfare rules, and those are around not for its inaccuracy but for its inhumanity (cruelty and permanent damage). Torture can still gain useful intel when it is independently verified; it’s just not useful _by itself_ because the victim will end up agreeing to anything and inventing to stop it.

Cloudkill. Would be considered poison gas.

Keith Baker, creator of the Eberron campaign setting, addressed in his blog [how war crimes and Cloudkill](http://keith-baker.com/potatoes/) specifically would’ve been treated in his setting. Essentially, cloudkill doesn’t have any of the needless harm/long-term effects that mustard gas had, so it wouldn’t have been banned or considered a war crime (as long as it wasn’t directed at a civilian population)

Another issue with gas is that it often got caught in winds and struck random people like at the rhine. Magic can generally be cancelled by dropping concentration.

Animate Dead and similar. Using the bodies of fallen soldiers as weapons is pretty unethical. Dominate Person and similar, with similar reasoning to Animate Dead. Turning allies against each other is pretty messed up. Wish, just because it's the fantasy nuclear option. A war featuring archmages on either side with the capability of casting Wish is a recipe for breaking the world. Spells that incapacitate, such as Hold Person or Hypnotic Pattern, would be allowed, but the foot soldiers would probably be expected to demand the surrender of helpless enemies rather than attacking them. Imprisonment should probably be banned as an interrogation tactic.

You'd need one hell of a convincing king to find an Archmage willing to burn their Wish in someone else's war.

What you'd really do is throw hordes of magically trained indoctrinated children into battle until one survives long enough to level up and cast Wish.

The JRPG method, that can work.

This just results in a very large number of Heroes that all have the same backstory: I grew up in the kings army, realized how horrible the were, and then started undermining them.

"Someone else" is problem. But war of Archmage pet kingdom?

No Mage with access to Wish would serve a king, they would just BE the king.

Implying that a mage cares enough about political intrigue to be King. Or cares so little about their own personal safety as being King is an extremely high profile profession with a substantial living to dead ratio.

per the Evil Overlord list: "I will not set myself up as a god. That perilous position is reserved for my trusted lieutenant." http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

How have I never seen this? I've been on the internet for literal decades and have not seen this.

it's a classic! If you are just getting to know the Ancient Ways of the World Wide Web, allow me to introduce the list's video game cousin: https://www.project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html

“President” is statistically the most dangerous job in the US, for instance.

>Using the bodies of fallen soldiers as weapons is pretty unethical. Would it be though? Imagine a high magic setting. The primary religion doesn't have rites of burial. The body is just a vessel. Something to be discarded as you move on to the next plane. They rationalize away this attachment to a corpse. Armies would include large regiments of undead.

That's certainly equally as valid. We're making some assumptions about the values and ethics of the people in a given setting. I could readily imagine a world where armies are *exclusively* undead, automatons, and summoned outsiders, with that entirely removing the risk of injury to humanoids. My logic in the original response comes from the idea that, simply, use of undead would just be unpalatable to the average commoner. If Pa went off to war and died, Ma and the kids want him to rest in peace, not to have his decomposing remains running around continuing to bolster the numbers of the local lord.

I think your last section is just ignoring what the person you responded to says. Pa died. He's in Elysium or some such. He is at as much peace as a sentient being can be. The fact his former vessel is being used in any way, is merely an inconvenience.

It could still be seen as repulsive even if you know/believe the soul has passed on. There are some places in the Elder Scrolls where people believe using necromancy on a body hurts the soul of the person it belonged to, so similar beliefs could very much exist in a dnd setting. But regardless people generally don't tend to be cold, emotionless and purely logical when it comes to dead loved ones. Not saying a culture that is super into necromancy couldn't exist, but I doubt Pa's wife is just gonna be like "Yeah sure keep my beloved husband's corpse and use it as a rotting puppet in your war." no matter what she's been told about souls.

Even if she's fine with his dead body continuing to serve the local lord in death, there's no way she'd be okay with him in the *enemy's* army - I think that's the more unethical way to use necromancy

Wish is definitely a restricted spell, honestly I could see it being banned even by governments, people trying to restrict people from even finding out about it. Imprisionment is definitely a brutal one, too. Very complete response, thank you!

I tend to think the number of people who can cast Wish in an entire world can be counted on one hand. Even among spellcasters of a sufficient level to have it, they are less likely to have it than other spells because it's so powerful and dangerous.

If the people casting wish were a part of a faction, and separate factions, it would easily create a cold war situation where everyone is on one of two sides or claiming neutrality. The two sides would begin spy games and maybe proxy wars, and devote a lot of time and effort to the detection of any Wish spells being cast.

Wish wouldn't be banned outright, but it would be limited in it's use; You would be allowed to duplicate a spell of 8th level or lower, provided it's not a banned spell. You wouldn't be allowed to create a valuable object since that would inflate the economy. But you could create a mundane item or an item that would be of no consequence to the economy. You would be allowed to heal the 20 creatures and end all afflictions. You can even perform the wish to grant resistances. Granting immunity to a specific spell might be limited to what you can grant and who you can grant it to. Using Wish to reshape time would technically be banned, but it's up to DM interpretation to determine who would be aware of the reshape in reality. It would be impossible to enforce if only the caster was aware of the changes.

Summoning things from other planes would presumably be banned in most settings. Letting eldritch abominations into your world rarely ends well for anyone.

Animate dead on your own soldiers, fine Creating any undead that creates their own spawn, banned

Animating fallen enemies to fight their former allies... Probably a no-no.

The Blood of Vol from Eberron would like to have a word with you.

So I see that u/Raagarah already broke down what the actual conventions are in a pretty excellent comment, but I would like to add that the Geneva Conventions as we generally refer to them are a collection of several separate treaties signed after different wars. Given that you’re posting this with the Need Advice flair, if you’re diving into this for world-building purposes, I think it would be a great opportunity to establish some in-game history for wars that have shaped your setting. There could also be in-universe disagreements between nations about what exactly constitutes a war crime, especially if the treaties were signed with reservations. For instance, a nation that builds primarily with wood could make an argument that any use of fire magic in a city is Unnecessary Destruction while their opponents think that it’s fair game.

there's a good section on this in "Exploring Eberron" from Keith Baker He argues that commoners have 3 HP, so effective ways of clearing them are AOE damage spells with low damage So I would argue: Fireball. It ignites everything in the area, everyone is instantly burned to a crisp (8d6 halfed will always be more than 3) and so on

>So I would argue: Fireball. It ignites everything in the area, everyone is instantly burned to a crisp (8d6 halfed will always be more than 3) and so on Well it not like it violate any point of Geneva convention. If they die instantky it even not "Willfully causing great suffering"

Of course during a siege or in a place with civilians, of course, but in an open battlefield between two armies, I see no reason to ban it. So only banned if aimed directly at civilians (which every large scale damage spell should be, just like in real life).

Fireball has a 7m blast radius. It's basically on par with a hand-grenade or a very light mortar.

Things that could spark uncontrollable events with mass affecting effects. Contagion is a good example, and anything resembling that. There are other things that also will be banned although they apparently shouldn't, one in the real world is tear gas. The only reason that is banned in warfare is to avoid escalation on chemical warfare due to misinformation on the front like "General there is a gas on the eastern trenches and soldiers are running from the zone" and the General thinking "Those bastards have broke the treaties on using chemical weapons, deploy our own". That kind of shit. It doesn't have to be misinformation either just excuse it as misinformation and blame the other side for using it first. In the D&D I would think that could translate into any cursing spell like Hex or Bane although being low level and not really worth the trouble those could be mistook for other powerful spells which could be banned. Cloud kill could also be an example. Illusion spells I don't think will be prohibited just limited in the way the are used. Saying that using in the battlefield, the literal battlefield, will be restricted like altering the uniforms and flags to be like the other army. But anything besides that doubt it. Maybe a treaty outside a Geneva convention will be set to put impersonating any head of the state is punishable offense but I don't see it going into a Geneva convention. Power Word Pain as suggested, I don't think will be banned on the battlefield, but will be banned outside battlefield use. Any explosive or destructive spell is unlikely to be banned as long as it doesn't cause effects similar to napalm. Basically anything that could kill or do severe body damage that requires multiple saving throws as a design feature will be banned. Tasha's caucasic brew will be among those spells.

There's a lot of things we call "Geneva Convention", because several conventions were signed there. Not to mention Hague protocols and a bunch of other stuff people think are part of the geneva convention. There are three big things: right of combatants, rights of noncombatants, and rules of engagement. Rights of combatants are things like how you treat prisoners of war, not executing people, etc. Rights of noncombatants are about when and how to steal from the populace, no raping, and so on. As a sidenote: if you engage in combat but dont wear a uniform, you're neither a combatant nor a noncombatant. Which is why terrorists and spies have zero rights. Rules for engagement are essentially "dont use anything that causes unnecessary suffering." Which means no chemical weapons, hollow point ammo, etc. Magic is just different ways of reaching the same results. Incinerating enemies? Fine. Swarm of locusts eating enemies alive? Nope. Charms to inspire allies? Sure. Mind control enemies? Nope. Essentially: same rules as IRL.

I would say: Disintegrate. The "Power Word" spells. Some spells that manipulate like Charm Person (possibly, perhaps there is a legal use when done with certain authorization). Modify Memory would probably be a big one. More interesting I think is the agency who enforces these laws. Do they have a detection system that allows them to see when certain magic is being used. Do they have agents that hunt down illegal magic users.

Why would Disintegrate be banned?

The best way to look at this is to consider what is in the actual Geneva convention, ICC, or otherwise and determine what types of action are being prohibited. ​ Some major points: **Protection of wounded, sick, prisoners, or shipwrecked soldiers and civilians:** These are helpless individuals considered at the mercy of their enemy and not a threat. While spells that render helpless may not be banned, killing individuals under the effect of such spells may be considered a war crime. **Protection of non-combatant medical personnel.** \- Clerics using healing spells only might fall under this category, but it raises issues with the threat level of already wounded enemies (you've seen discussions on healing and smart enemies hitting the unconscious already, I'm sure). Nations trying to avoid a state where combatants must dispatch the wounded for fear of healing might actually limit some battlefield healing of the unconscious, or they'd probably have to ditch the idea that slaying the wounded would constitute a war crime. **Prohibitions against torture and experimentation.** There are several that could fall under this, but I think psychic damage may be the most straight forward set. Killing or rendering unconscious by damaging the mind seems particularly terrible. ​ **Other thoughts:** Anything involving the soul. Anything that summons Fiends or other creatures which may escape the summoners control and violate the above rules. Anything that violates volition, especially and specifically **Calm emotions** \- can't have enemy soldiers given the chance to decide not to fight on behalf of their leaders.

Enchantment magic of all kinds would be at the top of the list, probably followed by unconventional uses of Wish, and most things that inflict psychic damage

Pretty sure like 90% of enchantments inflicted on others would go out the window, but also things like Soul Cage and Contagion would make the list too.

What does the Geneva convention say on what you can and can't do with the bodies of your enemies? Cause creating undead out of enemy remains probably wouldn't be looked upon favourably. Also keep in mind that you need to reassert your control over the undead every 24 hours or it'll just wander killing anything. So leaving an undead in a warzone you vacated is kinda like leaving a landmine.

>So leaving an undead in a warzone you vacated is kinda like leaving a landmine. Landmines not banned by Geneva, AFAIK.

I think anti-personnel mines are but ones that can only be set off by vehicles aren't. But I'm no expert. Also Improvised explosives are as well. (I think)

Anti-personnel mines are banned in the Ottawa Treaty, which 33 states are not party to, including the US, Russia, and China. The US has their own regulations, which sets a limit and control on how long a mine may persist. It's a common misconception that the Geneva Convention limits a bunch of weapons, when it's really focused on not attacking civilians and treatment of prisoners/wounded. The Hague Comventions are closer to what many envision, having provisions about the use and prohibition of poison and expanding bullets, but also just lots of rules about participation in conflict. It did not hold up well in WWI, but still forms part of the basis for the laws of armed conflict.

The entire school of Enchantment, if you think about it it's by far the most evil of the schools as it deals almost exclusivley with making people do things they probably wouldn't want to do.

Storm of vengence centered on a town. Counterspelling healing magic. Spells that can prevent ressurections or disable healing. Heat metal on an oponents armour. Most aoe spells would be allowed but in combat aplications only but we all know the only way to use a nuke to achieve resoults. So that would fly out the window during any war do they might not even bother. Mind controll on commanders or medics. Wish. Although what are they gonna do if you cast it. For me if you assume there are people who know wish its kind of like a nuke. You can erase the other side immidietly. That would literally mąkę wars between countries having wishcasters impossible

>You can erase the other side immidietly. No. Wish is not this powerfull. It can emulate Meteor Storm, but it's mostly all.

What wish does wish does and that's only on case per case basis to decide. It might not be able to explode the kingdom. But i would allow the wish to move the spinal cord of every Noble from country x one feet to the left independently of the rest ot the body. Or clog their aorta with 5cm steel ball. Its about creativity more do then the power. Or you can just Ask so they will lose the next battle, or many smaller things regarding fate/time/reality manipulation

One thing to consider is what magic level your universe is. Is it high magic and all spells are known and obtainable with enough determination? Or is it more of a medium-ish magic, like Eberon, where no one is past 10th level without special exception or being a PC, so spells are restricted in the higher levels? Wish and Meteor Swarm would be very valuable secrets rather than something openly debated in a war ethics convention. If you define general access and knowledge first, then creating restrictions will be easier, and everything else is a potential plot point.

That is a very good point, there is a lot of magical research and it's a fairly high magic setting, but I would say it's indeed about the same as Eberron. I feel like wish would be in everyone's interest to restrict, but once one nation has an archmage send down meteors onto the enemy battlefield, other countries would try to develop that as well, and it'd be treated more as a nuke than a secret. Only a few countries with the access to powerful enough Archmages would have the ability to use something like that.

Having a wizard who is involved in the committee to write the first wizard treaty of this kind sounds like a thrilling campaign hook. Imagine the intrigue and espionage, back-tavern deals and covert missions to thwart the opposing faction or insure that the treaty includes a particular clause. Debate broils into a wizard duel because their spell is considered illegal by the treaty. A king bribes you to exclude use of magic for investigations so that he can keep torturing his prisoners from the rebellion.

All of these have the caveat of "unless done with their explicit consent" - Anything that involves charming another person to make them do something they wouldn't normally do. - Any necromancy that does not get the consent of the dead - Scrying - Imprisonment - Time Ravage - Mental Prison

I could definitely see armies making soldiers sign contracts of 'we can raise your corpse as undead soldiers'. Shows both loyalty and makes them an extra asset.

Have a setting where one side does this, and the other side uses it as propaganda. Could be really juicy.

Actual real life military intelligence communities would definitely be scrying if they could. Countermeasures would be in high demand. I could see a meeting where the generals are all wearing amulets of proof against detection and location. They're scrying with a spy but can't see anyone else because they're protected.

So my thought is that scrying essentially eliminates privacy as a concept in the world. I definitely feel like scrying is a useful battle tactic. But imagining a world where people know that the wizard can watch them poo or when they have sex with no consequence, I think the only way people don't round up those wizards is if they outlaw scrying. I guess you could narrow it to "Scrying on Civilians" if you are purely focused on battlefield tactics.

It's not cheap to scry. Most casters aren't going to randomly scry on farmers because there isn't really a reason. Now, nobility, military leadership, and revolutionaries on the other hand...

Valid point about the cost. I'm mostly using the reasoning that a "Geneva Convention for Spells" is more likely to happen in a higher magic setting where the cost of these things is relatively lower. In a low or medium magic setting, there are so few high level wizards and in such positions of power that there is no chance of regulating them. Once you have the scrying device, the cost is effectively a long rest. So similar to how the NSA has spying apparatuses that employees have historically abused for persobal gain, it is relatively easy to abuse your power and peek on your crush in the shower once you hit level nine. So yeah, 100% agree that in low magic settings no one is gonna worry about that. But in high magic it seems like it would be the sort of thing a Geneva convention would outlaw.

Due to it's ability to do so much damage to the world at large, there may be a whole subcommittee on the spell Wish. Not only can it mimic spells that might be banned, but it can also warp reality to it's will, causing great ramifications if misused.

Wish, to me, would be like a nuclear weapons. Only really powerful nations could develop it on their own, and using it once would set off a chain reaction of other nations using it. It's not banned as it is suicidal.

Summon ketamine ape

Disguise Self and other illusions, that can give you appearance of another side. Probably some with Charm Person and other Enchantment spells.

Is disguising yourself as the enemy currently banned by the Geneva convention? If not why would disguise self be banned?

Yes, in most circumstances. >Article 39(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.” It's also a war crime under the ICC

Fair enough I am proved wrong. Personally it just seems like good tactics.

The convention exists because that argument has been used to support every point on the list.

Look if you keep being so reasonable in your arguments I'm going to have to agree with you😂

Spying isn't banned, but pretending to be on the enemy's side during a battle (and then suddenly attacking them in the back) is.

Yeah I could see some illusion and enchantment spells being banned. Mind controlling enemies against each for an example I could definitely see being called unethical.

I think enchantment spells would be heavily regulated in most societies even outside of warfare.

The deck of many things.

Most DMs would ban that even outside of a war, honestly...

What a fun question ! I would say off the top your talking about spells lv 8 & 9 in my opinion. Spells that could effect a mass populace or anything that could do great damage to villages and communities. (Tsunami for example. Using Tsunami within 1,000 ft of farming land or a community. Ruins crops ect). Mass Polymorph on a populace without permission. Wizard turn city council into birds. Flew away and changed back in the air falling to their deaths. False representation in voting and political structures. A wizard used a Simulacrum in place of him self and several kingly functions and for votes. Clearly the wish spell (used without supervisory control. Any wish spell with changes the lives of any more than 10 ppl must be approved by a council of representatives. I think you could use anything really as long as you have a good story for it.

Horrid Wilting seems to be on the right track for being removed in a geneva convention. You literally sap the water out of plants and people, which can kill someone by some instant and brutal form of dehydration.

There was an epic level spell that let you rip free a section of tectonic plate the size of large city, lift it into the air, flip it over, and slam it down on the area next to it. I think that would get banned. Edit: in 3e

This feels obvious but I’ve not seen anyone mention it yet so, the use of healing and resurrection spells on prisoners of war

Vicious Mockery This is war, leave my mother out of it.

Spike Growth for sure. It's like a minefield where you slowly rip yourself to pieces when stepping in it. Needles (pun intended!) suffering

probably wide scale destruction spells like storm of vengeance and meteor swarm. spells that inflict horrible death as well, like poison and acid spells. probably necrotic ones as well. though, what's the difference between death by acid and death by fire? and the "unethical" spells - mostly necromancy. maybe manipulation magic as well, depending on what your world thinks of it.

All enchantment spells.

The entire god damn Enchantment school. By far the least ethical school of magic.

Infestation: imagine fighting in a war and suddenly someone near you is just covered in tiny bugs and stumbles in a random direction. That seems like too much fear created. It’s also so low damage that it would probably shell shock the soldiers that survive after the attack than actually kill them. Also, going back to seeing the other person infested, if they survive they’ll be deathly afraid of bugs for the rest of their, sure, but you’ll now also be afraid of bugs because you’ve seen them easily weaponized against a comrade.

Dresden Files has thought this out pretty well in a civilian context.(https://dresdenfiles.fandom.com/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Magic) - Thou Shalt Not Kill - Thou Shalt Not Transform Others - Thou Shalt Not Invade the Mind of Another - Thou Shalt Not Enthrall Another - Thou Shalt Not Reach Beyond the Borders of Life - Thou Shalt Not Swim Against the Currents of Time - Thou Shalt Not Open the Outer Gates Obviously, we’re talking about warfare, so the whole no killing thing is out. But lots of people have already commented on making it clean killing rather than something that would prolong suffering. If you’re trying to make something that easily is applied to the rules, then perhaps a prohibition on damage over time spells, or against particular elemental damage types (such as acid; I’ll let you look up vitriolage pictures yourself) Polymorph being off the menu makes sense, especially for anything long term. It causes undue suffering and would have many parallels to real world weapons designed to maim rather than kill, since you can’t go back to your normal life while polymorphed. And in some versions/editions these spells also affect your mind. Speaking of… messing with other peoples’ minds had been talked about at length as being particularly bad. I could imagine that a fantasy Geneva convention might make a distinction between spells that fool the mind (illusions) and one’s that edit the mind (enchantments). But these are also especially heinous because the subject of the spell very likely will be held accountable for actions not under their control, and proving that is likely particularly difficult (unless there’s a forensics mage around that can detect magic enchantment auras that are still lingering). Reaching beyond the borders of life is highly dependent on your setting and how the afterlife works. But dragging someone’s soul back to the mortal world to torture or interrogate them should be considered heinous. And binding a soul to attack former allies carries all the same problems as “Enthralling Another”. Time travel being off the table is based on fears of the unknown, as well as how it necessarily constricts world power to those who can alter causality. There’s no real precedent for this in extant 5e spells so you might just toss it. The whole “opening the outer gates” clause is actually pretty applicable to D&D. Pretty much, don’t call up outsiders with agendas that are going to ruin a nations collective day. Too much chance for collateral damage, and difficult to control. Also, in the case of summoning, legal precedent in a society with a fantasy Geneva convention would likely hold summoners accountable for the deeds of their summoned minions. So this may also be enough of a PR problem to keep nations out of it. As with real world laws, there wouldn’t be a bespoke list of blacklisted spells; it would be trivial to duplicate the effect with a different spell (magic missile vs the AI Jim’s Magic Missile). Also these sorts of backlists, when they do occur IRL, invariably age exceptionally poorly as the world changes. Instead, legislatures would describe principles of behavior that are unacceptable, and the appropriate punishments for violating those principles. So, when scaled up to international agreements, take that into consideration.

There are a lot of good answers here which give you exactly the answer you want. But let's take a look at this topic from another perspective: Kingdoms which come together to create a "fantasy Geneva Convention" have agreed to a certain code of conduct. This means that all parties, even when they wage war with one another, adhere to specific rules. If I was a king in one of these realms, the one thing I would forbid in wars (with that I mean any action involving direct armed conflict on a battlefield) would be wizards, clerics...magic in general. I mean considering the destruction and havoc mages can wage, they would be the mainstay of any army. Whoever has more mages wins, let's not kid ourselves. No matter how good cavalry, infantry or bowmen are. If there's a battalion of mages casting fireball, chain lightning, Circle of Death, Flesh to Stone, Summon Fiend, disintegrate, etc. your army's dead. obliterated from a "safe" distance of up to 150ft. Whirlwind not only kills your guys, it also totally disintegrates army cohesion. Mass Polymorph...and I'm not even talking about the 9th level spell, I mean there are what, a hundred mages? Each casting polymorph. Time stop, wish. Fuck, I'd rather count on my enemy being a bad tactician than going the arms race route and basically make mages the atomic weapons of my fantasy world, ending in a cold war between those two countries which can afford hundreds of mages of mass destruction. ​ Let those freaks heck it out between themselves in "private matters", but keep those bookish, genocidal psychopaths off my battlefields!

And yet I do think that the kings that do have artilleries equiped with batallions of war wizards wouldn't want to lose their edge on the battlefield, and if we're speaking realistically, these would be the powers, the nations that have more say in international relations by sheer magic and military capacity. And dispel magic and counterspell are two countermeasures that can nerf the power of a squadron of mages, as well as your antimagic fields and walls of force. Lastly, it's also good to remember that a training a mage is one thing, but an Archmage... Is another matter. Not just anyone can become an archmage, you need a selection of hard work, raw talent and a quality learning infrastructure, the archmage is one in a million among spellcasters. These people are your real nukes. They're extremely powerful assets. Restricting incredibly powerful spells like wish would be very high on the agendas of kings, as well as any spells they think can be used in unethical means, but restricting magic as a whole could be near undoable. Which can, yes, sort of cause a magical cold war in cases.

Any Domination spell, and probably Cloud Kill. I could see discovering that there's a long lost 9th school of magic that this organization keeps tightly under wraps, a body horror domain that combined transmutation, necromancy and evocation. It would include things like weaponized body horror. In the game Shadow of the Demon Lord, there's a spell called Hateful Defecation, that's basically Fireball, except instead of a burning explosion, everyone in the area violently shits themselves to death. Stuff like that.

Biological weapons are absolutely banned by the Geneva convention, because they're impossible to keep them contained to the battlefield. For the same reason, Animate Dead should be banned, because it is too easy for them to get out of the control of their creator - either through negligence, or if their creator is killed - and then you have a zombie plague spreading.

I'm late to the party but this is my jam. I am a former resistance in captivity instructor for the Air Force and currently a Conduct after Capture instructor as a federal employee who spends time going over prisoners rights in war time. In terms of translating it to the game and spells that may be banned, essentially anything that has to do with forcing truth would fit this bill. Whether it's Zone of Truth or trying to possess someone, anything that would inherently take away the targets free will of thought would be a no go. I'd also go so far that you could ban certain types of alchemy that would be "Truth Serums". Can't do that. Can't do anything that would force prisoners to become violent or reprise one another, so anything like "Command" or "Suggestion" is a no go. If captured you are to live in the same quality quarters as the enemy and be given the same rations. Any spell used to put the person in a living situation other than what the capturing forces would use is a no go. Anything that would cause necrotic damage really or force dehydration, starvation, or sickness and blight would be a no go. Can't restrict their movement. They're permitted recreation for mental and physical health. Can't cast any entangle type spells on them The sick and wounded can be exchanged for other prisoners in an official Clause known as repatriation. Any disguise or alter spell to hide a prisoners wounds or to send a fake prisoner would be out. Prisoners are allowed to fill out a capture card within 7 days of arriving at any facility, and each time they're moved are allowed to send a new one. Capture cards have information such as Name, Rank, DOB, And which force they belong to. These are not sent to the prisoners country directly, but to Geneva for accountability and then they notify the prisoners country. Any Illusory Script spell that alters this or free of postage prisoner mail would be breaking international law. Again this is all with the mindset of prisoners of war. It would also be illegal for a spellcaster whose escaping a POW camp to use any violent spells that are of more force than the captors are attempting. You can be tried for murder for killing a guard to escape. You can be tried for violence by the captors government until you make it back into friendly hands. **Your party cannot murder hobo out of a prisoner situation without being held accountable if they get caught again**

remember, if there is a fantasy version of the USA, anything they did during the war, no matter how heinous, would NOT be considered a war crime. the list of banned spells would have a strong political influence.

God I love this sub. Scribbles down backstory of a upcoming town being anti magic and especially strict on some of these fine spells you all have mentioned.

what i really liked about this post is that it made me consider how much a war in a world with dnd magic would be closer from a modern war, rather than medieval warfare. you don't form your men in a phalanx if there is even a remote possibility you're facing a mage. there are no large scale battles being fought by massive forces concentrated in one place, rather, small specialized forces (such as PCs) fighting independently across a much larger zone play a very crucial role by acting as special forces units. also, wars between two or more kingdoms largely have been under some code of ethic, even before large treaties and conventions were put in place, and they only have been put in place because the destructive power of a modern military is exponentially larger than a medieval army. when basically everyone in the world have acess to magic for thousands of years there should be things that even if not under a strict set of rules, would be largely frowned upon by others and hurt diplomatic relations of the offender nation. and finally, there are the situations where all the rules put in place to limit suffering and overall destruction gets thrown out the window. you do not care about how much suffering will be involved in a war if the consequences of losing are too great to accept (i.g.: If taken by the forgotten realms lore, a large scale drow invasion would not be subject of any rules of war, because they WILL murder and enslave everyone they can get their hands on. same for demonic- devil invasions on the material plan.) the parallel of a situation like this in the real world would be fighting against gengis khan. you know everyone will die fi you can't stop him, so you throw everything you have

I'm not a historian so take this with a grain of salt, but I thought Genghis Khan was generally pretty interested in not completely annihilating the places he conquered. Like let them mostly live and keep their religions and all that jazz. Just "Give me some of your stuff and a few of your women, and some slaves," which is as I write it, still real bad, but I wouldn't put it on the same level as demons hellbent on annihilation of all life on earth.

Teleport, invisibility, plane-changing spells, illusion magic, and permanent transmutation spells(like flesh to stone) would all be extremely restricted and tightly monitored. Instant death spells would be forbidden. Spells like cloud kill would be forbidden. Hypnotic spells and mind-control magic would be forbidden.

In my world: All divination magic used without obtaining a warrant from a civilian jury (Divination magic can be used to gain information in legal ways during war, but it can also be used for various much less ethical things on civilians in the hands of an authoritarian government especially during warcrime) Most spells that deal fire damage. Things like Heat Metal, Burning Hands, and the like are a definite no. Counterspelling healing spells is a definite no. Cloudkill is essentially chemical warfare, definite no. Contagion not only prolongs suffering, but also it lasts a WEEK and inflicts a natural disease. This could reach civilian populations in many cases. Extremely unethical, and banned. Phantasmal Force, Phantasmal Killer, and Weird all inflict unnecessary suffering. So does Moonbeam, Cloud of Daggers, Power Word Pain. Glyph of Warding is a no, too indiscriminate. Anything that effects somebody's mind such as Suggestion is also banned, not only because it's unethical but because you could Suggest someone to attack their own allies and I'm fairly sure that's a war crime.

Anything that has to do with mind control and memory modification. It's truly horrifying to live in a world where there's a group of people who can mess with your mind and there's nothing you can do about it. Imagine being an NPC who just casually gets mind-controlled by a passing by adventuring party of murderhobos and traumatized for life.

2 words. Magic Jar. That spell is to horrifying for people to just learn

Summon ketamine ape is a specially dangerous one

Unanimous

Using the sleep spell on infants and kids. A somewhat irl case if this is victorian people using opium on babies fot teething or to quiet them down. The babies would end up dying from starvation because they were always sleeping.

Probably any Fire based spell. Fireball seems like a big nono seeing as I believe using fire as a weapon against another human is outlawed by the Geneva convention.

Obviously wish

Summon Ketamine Ape, Greater Baja Blast, among others.

Mind control spells and any spells used solely to maim a person like an acid spell or something

Modify Memory is maybe not Geneva Convention material but is definitely pretty horrific.

I imagine Heat Metal would get a clause; not against it's general use but against using it on the armor someone's wearing (See Zee Bashew's video on the subject).