Let me preface this by saying, I am not using the Golarion setting (but I know that Golarion is not using the middle ages) but I am using its pantheon.
The spoilered text is directly relevant to my current situation, but in hindsight (I'm spoilering it AFTER I already typed it up) is not necessary to my point:
Spoiler:
To paint a picture of my current homebrew (using mostly ONLY info that the players know instead of the entire picture):
Hooks dangle from the skies all across the lands (players don't know this but it's necessary for your understanding: This entire massive area is locked in a demiplane and the chains belong to kyton overlords), travel is difficult and highly dangerous, most lands consist of plains while forests are dangerous due to elves. The players discovered (and helped evacuate) a town that was suffering massively from an aberrant threat they still didn't fully understand, shortly after facing a threat from urgathoan cultists.
In this new town they've reached (they've been in two different towns, but in both, they've never seen dwarves, gnomes or elves (due to a story reason) and still don't know why people fear elves), there are laws against civilians owning weapons. The town itself doesn't have any local police force (aside from an in-training militia), the military that IS located there however are from a northern garrison. The troops are there to protect the town due to its importance as a trade route, not for the sake of the townspeople, and they don't protect it against supernatural threats like undead, demons or extra-planar threats. The town DOES experience planar breaches and has a small group of militia that deal with such threats called the nightwatch (planar breaches are little worse than goblin excursions, being worse only because extra-planar creatures don't simply slash weapons at you). Planar breaches are also normal in this world/demi-plane, although they don't suffer from visits from high rollers like nightshades or powerful qlippoth.
Also, the two main gang factions (the only two with any real power) are rival undead gangs (one ruled by three vampire sisters and the other by a lich).
Reading all that, and keeping in mind that in this world there IS magic along with DIVINE magic, is there really any weight to an argument like 'it was different back then'?
(what I'm about to say will probably sound childishly simplistic in thought and understanding, but please bear with it and try to understand the logic behind it)
Don't know about you, but I think the bubonic plague might've made a smaller impression if people had remove disease wands, potions, scrolls or castings. Plus Europe would've sucked to live in, considering that you could destabilize a kingdom since kings would've been taken out by simply teleporting in assassins to his bedroom. Magical defenses against such a thing? Nope, the church opposed magic, use DIVINE magic? Nope, the church had its own military but so did the rulers back then and I'm pretty sure they didn't make use of the church's, hence no divine magic users. At this point they'd have to employ the church's clerics and paladins? Congratulations, history has changed. The church would NOT loan its military? Yeah, because the church TOTALLY wouldn't jump at the chance to increase its power and influence.
Condemn Jews due to blood libels? Nope, 'speak with dead' with the dead child/person would disprove it, followed up with detect evil which would inevitably fail. Spanish inquisition? Detect evil on the inquisitors and end the period before it starts. Hundred years war? Try thousand years war as opposing armies use goblins, who breed like mad, to fight their wars for them. Inter-racial cities/countries? People till TODAY have problems with merely neighboring countries of HUMANS, how would their impression of creatures who AREN'T EVEN HUMANS be (thank you Keith Baker for that awesome article by the way)?
When I brought up that magic alone changes everything, I kept getting responses that tried to trivialize the role it would play. I'm sorry but magic ALONE does change everything, let alone the fact that the world would have SEVERAL sentient races living on it AND several planes that also have SEVERAL sentient races living in them.
Putting magic aside for a second, I think victory in wars would go to the side who had the abilities of either darkvision or low-light vision as well (and being able to cast darkness as a racial?).
How on earth does it seem logical to equate a DnD world with the real world?
Those kings would have their own spell-casters, and if they want to stay on the payroll their spell lists could not consist entirely of combat spells. A king would have his own diviners and ways to prevent scrying. A wealthy king would ward his castle against teleportation. Basically both sides would adapt to the availability of magic.
In terms of disease and injury I think you're right that the severity would be lessened. But consider that spell-casters would usually not give away their abilities for free.
Let me preface this by saying, I am not using the Golarion setting (but I know that Golarion is not using the middle ages) but I am using its pantheon.
Don't know about you, but I think the bubonic plague might've made a smaller impression if people had remove disease wands, potions, scrolls or castings.
I disagree. Clerics can only cast a certain number of spells per day. In fact, having Remove Disease cast on you wouldn't protect you from another infestation (the immune system might, but in D&D-verse, that's governed by saves or checks, not reality), and infections were caused by infected fleas, and those are hard to get rid of. (There might be spells to keep away vermin, but people would probably use those spells because they think bugs are disgusting, not for health reasons. Even people who could cast these spells or afford to have them cast might not use them, if they would rather use their spells or money on other things.)
I don't know if people in a magical society would know about how diseases are spread, not even necessarily clerics who can cast the appropriate spells and have the Heal skill.
The end result, assuming no increase in medical skill, would be a slightly reduced death rate.
Quote:
Plus Europe would've sucked to live in, considering that you could destabilize a kingdom since kings would've been taken out by simply teleporting in assassins to his bedroom. Magical defenses against such a thing?
I believe a lot of minor nobles would have been easy to kill, but the king would probably spend most of his time (slightly paranoid) in his castle. It doesn't matter if the king is a 1st-level aristocrat, he's living in a castle under a high-level dimensional lock effect, and also protected by wards against extraplanar monsters, etc. Becoming a king would be risky, but the reward would be safety. I can imagine a king (who doesn't really need to be a balanced NPC, let's be blunt) putting on a crown that gives him +6 Charisma ... and Uncanny Dodge.
Quote:
Nope, the church opposed magic, use DIVINE magic? Nope, the church had its own military but so did the rulers back then and I'm pretty sure they didn't make use of the church's, hence no divine magic users. At this point they'd have to employ the church's clerics and paladins? Congratulations, history has changed. The church would NOT loan its military? Yeah, because the church TOTALLY wouldn't jump at the chance to increase its power and influence.
I wonder about this.
I could picture the church opposing arcane magic, allegedly for religious reasons but probably more because they don't like the competition.
But the amount of "armed clergy" would still be small. In the real life Middle Ages, the Papal States (a chunk of Middle Italy) was governed by the church, and there were also a few knightly orders (the Knight Templar were the most famous), but there were never lots of them. And that's in a society where all you needed to be a templar was faith and a sword, much less actual talent at either divine casting or being a paladin. (To be a cleric or paladin, you need to be a "hero". Adepts are another story, though; I'm not sure how common they would be, but there should be fewer than warriors.)
I don't believe the church would have been that powerful militarily. Incidentally, the Knight Templar were in fact loaned for military operations, although (given their duties) only in the Middle East. They lost a bunch of templar supporting a more secular force at the Horns of Hattin.
Quote:
Condemn Jews due to blood libels? Nope, 'speak with dead' with the dead child/person would disprove it, followed up with detect evil which would inevitably fail.
I think religious warfare would have been even nastier, assuming the rabbi and priests didn't get together, contact the appropriate angels, and discovered they're actually different branches of the same religion :)
Of course, alignment would play a key role here. Unlike in real life, it matters when it comes to divine casters in D&D.
In real-life, the Church held power by giving confessors to nobles. Who naturally told their confessors lots of things they might have preferred to keep secret. Many powerful positions (think of them as cabinet positions) would go to churchmen too. For instance, the Minister of War would be the Duke of So-and-So, the Minister of Education would be Cardinal J, and so forth. (Not that those exact titles would have existed back then!)
Quote:
Spanish inquisition? Detect evil on the inquisitors and end the period before it starts. Hundred years war? Try thousand years war as opposing armies use goblins, who breed like mad, to fight their wars for them. Inter-racial cities/countries? People till TODAY have problems with merely neighboring countries of HUMANS, how would their impression of creatures who AREN'T EVEN HUMANS be (thank you Keith Baker for that awesome article by the way)?
The inquisition would run into the same issue as above... if only clerics of [Insert Religion Here] were members of the Inquisition, and only they get to cast spells like Detect Alignment... what matters is, can they be corrupt and still be clerics?
In an Eberron-like 'verse, evil clerics of a good deity (like the Silver Flame) detect as good when you cast Detect Alignment on them! Which makes corrupt clerics possible, but not in most settings.
I agree that big wars could easily last a long time if you breed goblins. Then again, if a king ventures onto the battlefield, they'll probably be assassinated away from their magically protected castle ... or tent.
As Terry Pratchett says, "black and white get together and gang up on green."
One of the cultural divides between groups of humans are languages, but Common is a language in D&D-verse that doesn't exist in real life. In such a setting, the Hundred Years War would probably be a war between humanity and a hobgoblin empire instead. (Thinking Eberron again, although there was a massive human civil war too.)
Quote:
Putting magic aside for a second, I think victory in wars would go to the side who had the abilities of either darkvision or low-light vision as well (and being able to cast darkness as a racial?).
Yes to the first two (night battles are really hard to do, especially back in those days, so whoever isn't night blind gets a huge advantage) but the latter I wouldn't count. An entire army of drow couldn't blot out a battlefield (and you could just kill them with a hail of poorly-aimed arrows anyway).
Of course, that's moot if the two sides are humans (still the most common race). Going into the forest to fight elves would be ... a bad idea. As soon as it gets dark, expect to be feathered with arrows. Lots of them!
Quote:
How on earth does it seem logical to equate a DnD world with the real world?
Take a look at this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdventureFriendlyWorld
This doesn't fill in all the gaps, of course. But I think the basic structures fit. This is especially the case if the designers ensure the world has reasons for "keeping the balance", pirates, a lack of a ridiculous number of clerics or high-powered mages, etc.
I'm seeing good arguments here, to argue my point further based on the points brought forth:
1. I don't believe the church would be given much of a chance to be corrupted (not impossible, but very difficult) since I would imagine posts higher than priest would require vetting with the strongest divine spells in a church' arsenal. Once corruption enters into the equation, it gets harder to boot it out, but I would imagine Christianity and Judaism would get stronger involvement from God and/or his angels thanks to the ability to summon and/or contact them. What's more, if we assume there's only God himself and no other deities/pantheon (since if the Abrahamic faiths are correct, there is only one God (for all of you who wish to reply to this issue, please don't, I wish to stay on topic and I don't want this to switch to a discussion on religion)), then there can be no evil cleric (neutral yes, evil no) or evil divine spells used (which comes into the equation because it would take an evil cleric to help commit something like the spanish inquisition). Also, while clerics might be capable of not being good or trying to subvert the faith, paladins would certainly never accept this move.
2. For the case of disease as major as the plague, I would imagine divinations would make the cause known. The pope (who would probably be chosen by God at this point, given the important status/responsibilities/capabilities of this position, would have to be a high ranking cleric) could most likely divine the cause of the illness. A heavy campaign against vermin, perhaps using creatures (like mites) who could essentially control vermin (at least the normal fleas), would stop the plague from causing such an impact.
3. On the case of magic being used in the empire, going back to point 1, the church would have ideological differences with the use of magic and would certainly oppose any king that would use it (as would any Abrahamic religion). Kings would not be able to get clerics who would be okay with the use of wizards since this would be against their faith and they'd probably lose their clerical abilities.
4. Given that the Abrahamic faiths all worship the same God, they would most likely become more akin to brothers since the same God would make sure all their religious books are correct and in agreement on all points (essentially meaning one faith).
5. The hundred years war being between humanity and hobgoblins (most likely) is another good point, with the MANY sentient races, we could have inter-racial wars every couple of decades.
6. Another point I'd forgotten, one of the most dangerous things a wizard can do is to turn into a lich. Once a wizard becomes a lich, aside from being far more powerful, we'd start seeing undead APLENTY (not an issue with clerics, since they most likely would not be allowed to animate the dead). In a relatively high fantasy setting like PF, eberron and FR, it's understandable that you wouldn't have horrific outbreaks of undeath, but if the real world has a lack of clerics and paladins, a simple creature like a bodak would cause all kinds of hell.
7. Druids alone could help the agriculture in an area, aside from being able to help crops grow consistently, he'd bring a major step forward in animal husbandry. I would imagine that farmers would make it necessary to learn the ways of druids for this case. Given that druidic magic is divine in nature, I think they probably wouldn't come into any problems with the church.
8. Non-human settlements could have radically different laws, norms and customs than anything we've seen so far. Human customs would be different for that matter, we'd either have less divine monarchs or at least they wouldn't be tyrants or despots (given that the point is that they're chosen by God to rule).
I think plague became a major gamechanger because it could hit everyone, everywhere. From the lowest serf up to the emperors, nobody was safe and the scale of it apparently did make a quite serious impact on society.
If the top 1% of society could afford magical healing, the situation would be quite different. Then plague is a problem of the faceless masses and an economical issue, but if they were basically immune to it, nobles and priests would likely react to it quite differently.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bigtuna wrote:
I would like to mention that it's a theory that the black death was transfered by fleas. Other theories point to a virus.
Both of which were essentially transported by rats which got a boom in population thanks to mass burnings of cats. Not to mention they went everywhere man's ships went.
I think plague became a major gamechanger because it could hit everyone, everywhere. From the lowest serf up to the emperors, nobody was safe and the scale of it apparently did make a quite serious impact on society.
If the top 1% of society could afford magical healing, the situation would be quite different. Then plague is a problem of the faceless masses and an economical issue, but if they were basically immune to it, nobles and priests would likely react to it quite differently.
Actually a large effect of the plagues was the loss of population, leading to laborers being more in demand and thus shifting the balance of power in society.
Quote:
The Black Death finally lapsed in approximately 1350, and profound economic changes took place. Worldwide trade declined, and wars in Europe paused during the Black Death. People had abandoned farms and villages during the plague. Serfs were no longer tied to their previous plot of land. Due to a severe labor shortage, serf survivors were able to demand higher wages and better working conditions from their new landlords. This may have contributed to the rise of capitalism. Many serfs moved to cities and contributed to the rise in urbanization and industrialization.
Curing a handful of the richest would change their opinions of the plague, but not the long term effects. Though the lack of shared suffering might lead to more peasant uprisings.
More generally, it's all sort of moot. We don't in general play in settings that resemble parts of the real world plus magic because it's reasonable to expect that adding magic would still let societies develop in roughly the same way, but because we like to have a frame of reference. We're tapping into a literary history that has its roots in history, myth and legend. It's all familiar to us, that's why it works.
And those myths and legends were about the worlds the people telling them knew, plus magic and gods and monsters.
You can come up with completely unique settings that carefully consider all the logical ramifications of having magic and of having had magic throughout history, but it's going to be a lot of work, both to come up with and for the players to relate to.
1) There is an equivalent for "Common" tongue in our world; it's called Esperanto. It just never gained the widespread acceptance that Common did in Golaron and other stereotypical fantasy settings. Hell, even among members of the same race we have a myriad of languages that we speak; the concept that an entire race speaks a single language is a bit of a trope. Even across a single country like China several different spoken languages exist (though, in China's case, unified in that they all share the are all written the same). If you want to make it more "our-worldy", ditch the "common tongue" and come up with several "regional-based" languages rather than "racial-based" languages. This would make the Linguistics skill a bit more useful.
2) The plague, while decimating the population of England, also opened up a lot of opportunities. Before the plague, people were pretty much set in their professions. There was little room to "break in" to a profession unless you had pretty good connections. After the plague wiped out a large portion of the workforce, there were suddenly a ton of jobs opening up and people that wouldn't have otherwise been able to get those jobs were able to secure them. Without that, a lot of pre-existing guilds and cartels would have cornered the job market. That's something to consider if the Plague has a lesser effect on your world.
3) Regarding religion, it's a tricky subject when conflating fantasy "crystal dragon Jesus" religions with real-world religions. On the one hand, you have the basic idea that you have a single LG God represented in both Judaism and Christianity. Following PF religion rules, you wouldn't have any true followers that aren't LG, NG, or LN. Corruption, at that point, becomes a moot topic because any followers of an evil or even a neutral deity would detect as such. On the other hand, if this deity weren't LG but rather LN, then both Good and Evil clerics would detect as Neutral and corruption could be much more easily hidden. Furthermore, given the drastic differences in the apparent personality of "Old-Testament" God and "New-Testament" God, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that these are, in fact, two different deities; LN Yahweh from OT and LG Jehovah from NT. It could even be a suplantation situation where Yahweh and Jehovah had a cosmic punch-out and Jehovah won. Lastly, regarding the habit of Christianity to "demonize" other religions' deities would likely set them much more at odds with other religions since there's actual divine magical power involved in the religious arms race. Other deities likely don't appreciate being classified as demons and devils regardless of their alignment or plane of association simply because they aren't the Christian God. This would also limit the actions of Druids, Rangers, and many Oracles since their "divine" powers would be declared "unclean" by the Church. Some may be posthumously sanctified a la Jeanne de Arc, but many who even use their powers for good would be vilified and ignobly killed.
4) Lastly, just because the Church opposes something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just happens in basements, closets, dark alleyways, and such. So arcane magicians would still exist. Their frequency would be higher the further away from centers of Church control. There could be some nobles who even outright reject the Church (ref. Church of England). If you're gonna make up your own church, you might as well allow arcane casters to be kosher in it. It could even be a Razmiran type setup. Furthermore, while the majority of top nobles would be "in the pocket of the Church", generally the second or third tier down wouldn't be put under such scrutiny. Same goes for the highest level merchant barons who typically were wealthy enough to hob-nob with the lower circles of royalty. The Top Nobles would have to rely on Divine magic as their go-to deus ex machina, but just a few circles down you'll have wealthy and powerful people playing both sides as needed.
I'm seeing good arguments here, to argue my point further based on the points brought forth:
1. I don't believe the church would be given much of a chance to be corrupted (not impossible, but very difficult) since I would imagine posts higher than priest would require vetting with the strongest divine spells in a church' arsenal.
Good point. In this case, I don't think there would only be one source of divine magic. Other religions were derided as fake, but they were known to Europe.
One wonders how much influence foreign religions might have? I'm picturing, instead of the split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, a reemergence of pagan faiths. (A lot of pagan faiths were lost when a people, defeated in battle, believed their old gods abandoned them, or never existed. It's a little hard to argue this when your priests are literally casting spells.)
Quote:
2. For the case of disease as major as the plague, I would imagine divinations would make the cause known. The pope (who would probably be chosen by God at this point, given the important status/responsibilities/capabilities of this position, would have to be a high ranking cleric) could most likely divine the cause of the illness. A heavy campaign against vermin, perhaps using creatures (like mites) who could essentially control vermin (at least the normal fleas), would stop the plague from causing such an impact.
Again, good point. Since the church would likely teach this to everyone, we'd effectively have a Louis Pasteur society hundreds of years earlier :)
In this case, plague would have much less impact. People would immediately start killing rats and breeding cats.
Quote:
3. On the case of magic being used in the empire, going back to point 1, the church would have ideological differences with the use of magic and would certainly oppose any king that would use it (as would any Abrahamic religion). Kings would not be able to get clerics who would be okay with the use of wizards since this would be against their faith and they'd probably lose their clerical abilities.
This one I find a bit harder to accept. The church doesn't have a religious objection to arcane magic (beyond, say, diabolism). They wouldn't be happy about it, but if the king wants to hire a wizard and has a priest loyal to them, what can the church do? This kind of divided loyalties for churchmen existed in real life. What was more important, the land of your birth (and possibly family?) or the church you've devoted your life too?
I think we'd just see a lot of "sneering" at wizards, and homilies about how you can't trust them, rather than outright bans.
Quote:
4. Given that the Abrahamic faiths all worship the same God, they would most likely become more akin to brothers since the same God would make sure all their religious books are correct and in agreement on all points (essentially meaning one faith).
Yup. One wonders if doctrinaire conflicts can break out if angels tell you to stop fighting. I'm guessing not.
Quote:
5. The hundred years war being between humanity and hobgoblins (most likely) is another good point, with the MANY sentient races, we could have inter-racial wars every couple of decades.
In most fantasy settings, the nonhumanoid races each have at least one disadvantage.
Elves have low populations and are more oriented toward defense than offense. (The Valenar elves of Eberron are extremely aggressive, but even they have low populations, plus an ossified culture that presumably takes away some of their tactical advantages.)
Goblins can't organize properly. They form small tribes, and it's a marvel when a goblin warlord arises who can get a few tribes to work together. After one defeat (or death of said warlord), the tribes break up, and go back to killing each other.
Orcs. See goblins.
Drow. See goblins, but less so. They have low populations, and they tend to backstab each other. (Drow breed faster than elves, but that doesn't mean their population is larger.)
Hobgoblins. The biggest worry, because over the lifespan of D&D they've gotten smarter, without losing advantages such as low-light vision or darkvision. Eberron is the best example of this trope. I think there's just fewer of them in Eberron than humans, that's the only reason hobgoblins haven't conquered Khorvaire.
Quote:
6. Another point I'd forgotten, one of the most dangerous things a wizard can do is to turn into a lich. Once a wizard becomes a lich, aside from being far more powerful, we'd start seeing undead APLENTY (not an issue with clerics, since they most likely would not be allowed to animate the dead). In a relatively high fantasy setting like PF, eberron and FR, it's understandable that you wouldn't have horrific outbreaks of undeath, but if the real world has a lack of clerics and paladins, a simple creature like a bodak would cause all kinds of hell.
If only to preserve an adventuring world, I think there would be evil clerics, but not of God, but of Satan, or whoever. Their religion would be derided, perhaps even as "fake" or cults, but they can still exist.
Quote:
7. Druids alone could help the agriculture in an area, aside from being able to help crops grow consistently, he'd bring a major step forward in animal husbandry. I would imagine that farmers would make it necessary to learn the ways of druids for this case. Given that druidic magic is divine in nature, I think they probably wouldn't come into any problems with the church.
Where are druids getting their powers from? Either other gods, or primal spirits, which sounds very much against what the church would tolerate. (Many pagan religions would have worshipped spirits, idols, or what not, but not God. Verbotten. No druids allowed! Which doesn't mean there wouldn't be any, but they have to keep a low profile.)
Quote:
8. Non-human settlements could have radically different laws, norms and customs than anything we've seen so far. Human customs would be different for that matter, we'd either have less divine monarchs or at least they wouldn't be tyrants or despots (given that the point is that they're chosen by God to rule).
In such a case, "divine" monarchs would essentially be paladins, priests or other people with obvious blessings. There'd be less hereditary monarchs, provided the kings respect the church. (They might not. If the king, essentially a warlord, has more power than the church, the church might still lend them priests in support, in order to influence the king. I'm not sure if the church would rule supreme in such a world.)
If you're still going to adventure in such a world, PCs would need to do so on the fringes, perhaps where the church is weaker and can't stamp out cults without help.
One wonders how much influence foreign religions might have? I'm picturing, instead of the split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, a reemergence of pagan faiths. (A lot of pagan faiths were lost when a people, defeated in battle, believed their old gods abandoned them, or never existed. It's a little hard to argue this when your priests are literally casting spells.)
Quote:
3. On the case of magic being used in the empire, going back to point 1, the church would have ideological differences with the use of magic and would certainly oppose any king that would use it (as would any Abrahamic religion). Kings would not be able to get clerics who would be okay with the use of wizards since this would be against their faith and they'd probably lose their clerical abilities.
This one I find a bit harder to accept. The church doesn't have a religious objection to arcane magic (beyond, say, diabolism). They wouldn't be happy about it, but if the king wants to hire a wizard and has a priest loyal to them, what can the church do? This kind of divided loyalties for churchmen existed in real life. What was more important, the land of your birth (and possibly family?) or the church you've devoted your life too?
I think we'd just see a lot of "sneering" at wizards, and homilies about how you can't trust them, rather than outright bans.
Quote:
5. The hundred years war being between humanity and hobgoblins (most likely) is another good point, with the MANY sentient races, we could have inter-racial wars every couple of decades.
Elves have low populations and are more oriented toward defense than offense. (The Valenar elves of Eberron are extremely aggressive, but even they have low populations, plus an ossified culture that presumably takes away some of their tactical advantages.)
Goblins can't organize properly. They form small tribes, and it's a marvel when a goblin warlord arises who can get a few tribes to work together. After one defeat (or death of said warlord), the tribes break up, and go back to killing each other.
Orcs. See goblins.
Drow. See goblins, but less so. They have low populations, and they tend to backstab each other. (Drow breed faster than elves, but that doesn't mean their population is larger.)
Hobgoblins. The biggest worry, because over the lifespan of D&D they've gotten smarter, without losing advantages such as low-light vision or darkvision. Eberron is the best example of this trope. I think there's just fewer of them in Eberron than humans, that's the only reason hobgoblins haven't conquered Khorvaire.
Quote:
6. Another point I'd forgotten, one of the most dangerous things a wizard can do is to turn into a lich. Once a wizard becomes a lich, aside from being far more powerful, we'd start seeing undead APLENTY (not an issue with clerics, since they most likely would not be allowed to animate the dead). In a relatively high fantasy setting like PF, eberron and FR, it's understandable that you wouldn't have horrific outbreaks of undeath, but if the real world has a lack of clerics and paladins, a simple creature like a bodak would cause all kinds of hell.
If only to preserve an adventuring world, I think there would be evil clerics, but not of God, but of Satan, or whoever. Their religion would be derided, perhaps even as "fake" or cults, but they can still exist.
Quote:
7. Druids alone could help the agriculture in an area, aside from being able to help crops grow consistently, he'd bring a major step forward in animal husbandry. I would imagine that farmers would make it necessary to learn the ways of druids for this case. Given that druidic magic is divine in nature, I think they probably wouldn't come into any problems with the church.
Where are druids getting their powers from? Either other gods, or primal spirits, which sounds very much against what the church would tolerate. (Many pagan religions would have worshipped spirits, idols, or what not, but not God. Verbotten. No druids allowed! Which doesn't mean there wouldn't be any, but they have to keep a low profile.)
Quote:
9. Aliens.
Like Cthulhu?
1. True enough, pagan gods would certainly be granting their followers aid in the form of either divine or arcane spells and we'd probably see an emergence of pagan faiths.
3. That's actually surprising, I'd thought it was a religious objection to magic (which would also mean bans on magical weaponry as well (I'm thinking something close to the BBC show merlin)). Barring any heavy-handedness against wizardry (aside from diabolism), it would most likely find a good place in all manner of places from the courts of the upper class to even the homes of peasants and serfs (indeed, to combat such power, one would need an equal force of at least equivalent power).
5. That's actually a good point, I remember reading that back in 1e, one of the reasons elves couldn't get to max level was because Gygax reasoned that with immortal lifespans (I think they were immortal back then), there'd be no reason that elves wouldn't become overlords of the world. These differences can manifest in amazingly new and strange warfare methods.
6. That is an interesting point, much like druids receive their power from other sources, so could evil clerics receive it from a seperate source.
7. Good point, though I'd add that given that the church has a closer relationship with God and His angels in this scenario, they'd probably tolerate druids but in this case they would most certainly not allow them to teach their faith.
9.Like cthulhu! And.....dragons, kobolds and other lizardmen races. :D
In my campaign, I intend to get the party to find their way onto a massive space station (designed to have levels) where dragons (chromatic only + picture a red dragon wearing that visor from star trek as well) are revered as something close to divine beings by troglodytes, lizardfolk and kobolds. At birth, the lizardmen races have their right arm amputated and replaced with a futuristic construct which can handle different attachments, all the way from drills to attached blasters. The society is essentially a technocracy, but the bigger and more brutish lizardmen reserve more rights for themselves and it's currently causing problems to arise.
EDIT: And yes, it is more sword and sorcery oriented campaign, but they're going to be travelling the planes in addition to visiting other planets and space stations.
I won't go with a point by point discussion as a lot of your suppositions are just suppositions. IMO the church never controlled the military. They certainly had influence, but the church had very few fighting forces, relying on secular lords and their armies to get anything martial done. The crusades, for example, was an attempt at directing the many secular military bodies who were at the time attacking each other making Europe chaotic. Only through the threat of excommunication of the lords, the magic of the relics and peer pressure did the crusades even occur. It wasn't a simple order from the Pope that automatically created military forces to go to the Holy Land - it took a lot of politics to get them there.
I look at the magical equivalent in the real world middle ages as science. The classical sciences of ancient Greece and Rome existed under Muslim control throughout Europe's medieval period. In the same way magic would be accepted outside of church controlled Europe and in some other culture or hinterland. Science did exist in the middle ages and to some extent studied by the church. So while magic/science did exist, it had a stronger foothold in nations not under church control.
The virus that causes the Black Plague were carried by fleas that lived on rats. But the Syphlis Plague killed a lot more Europeans than the Black Plague ever did - and of course Syphlis isn't carried by fleas... but sailors and whores.
The virus that causes the Black Plague were carried by fleas that lived on rats. But the Syphlis Plague killed a lot more Europeans than the Black Plague ever did - and of course Syphlis isn't carried by fleas... but sailors and whores.
Evidence? Just looking quickly around the web, it looks like the Black Death killed at least a third of the European population, which was probably over 100 million at the time. While Syphilis gets estimated at a few million deaths. All of these are rough numbers and disputed to some extent or another, but I don't see anything that suggests Syphilis came close.
By placing it in medieval times, you eliminate monks, ninjas, and gunslingers(maybe). The space dragons may be giving guns to thoes they support. Also, a king may allow some lizardfolk knights in exchange for teleport locking tech. The space station can port persons in and out, but no other method will work in the castle.
I read a book on European Plagues that stated this - I can't recall the name of the book off the top of my head (read it a few years ago). However the real reason to state that Syphlis killed more Europeans is that the plague didn't go away, it's still still here more or less from when it began in the 15th century. Where as the Black Plague shows up kills lots of people then ends, to show up place else. Plus there have not been any Black Plague outbreaks since that time (though the virus still exists) The Syphlis plague didn't kill masses in one stroke.
If I can find the book in my library (I own it), I'll repost with a reference to ti.
The Black Plague was caused by a bacterium, Yersinia pestis, and it's still around today. Our ancestors who survived the Black Death, which spread from India* to the Old World -- so that's most of us, anyway -- are now pretty resistant to it. So when the disease hits us again, it doesn't have nearly the same effect.
(Let's contrast with smallpox, which is still deadly, but at the same time doesn't spread very effectively and is even more easily controlled through vaccination.)
Yersinia pestis infected rats as well as fleas. From what I've read, it was rat rather than human fleas that usually transmitted the disease to humans. (Once rats died, starving fleas bit whatever was close. Humans.)
*Wikipedia is saying China, but since it spread worldwide...
When I was in the army stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado, there were rats on an island on a secure lake that are all infested with the plague virus - so the Black Plague virus is very much alive and not just in laboratories.
The infection rate for Syphilis is around 8 - 10% of the population in cities and ports of Europe, and untreated it kills and becomes heriditary. While 8% is small compared to the numbers who died from Black Plague, until the 20th century that 8% was year to year for 400 years - the accumulated death toll during that 400 years far exceeds the total deaths from the plague.
When I was in the army stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado, there were rats on an island on a secure lake that are all infested with the plague virus - so the Black Plague virus is very much alive and not just in laboratories.
The infection rate for Syphilis is around 8 - 10% of the population in cities and ports of Europe, and untreated it kills and becomes heriditary. While 8% is small compared to the numbers who died from Black Plague, until the 20th century that 8% was year to year for 400 years - the accumulated death toll during that 400 years far exceeds the total deaths from the plague.
Even untreated it kills slowly. Not 8-10% dead a year.
I poked around a bit more and haven't found any other good numbers for syphilis deaths.
Of course, none of that really matters for the purpose at hand. Long term totals are less relevant. The Black Death swept across the world and had drastic effects on many of the societies it decimated. Even if syphilis did more damage in the long run, it didn't have the same kind of effect on society.
Other than, possibly, the dementia effects on some rulers, but that's hard to pin down.
Even untreated it kills slowly. Not 8-10% dead a year.
I poked around a bit more and haven't found any other good numbers for syphilis deaths.
Of course, none of that really matters for the purpose at hand. Long term totals are less relevant. The Black Death swept across the world and had drastic effects on many of the societies it decimated. Even if syphilis did more damage in the long run, it didn't have the same kind of effect on society.
Other than, possibly, the dementia effects on some rulers, but that's hard to pin down.
I didn't claim that it did, and certainly the Black Death had a more profound affect on Europe than any other contagion. (I did say infection rate and not death rate - the true death rate is unknown and cannot be proven simply due to misdiagnosis,varying symptoms and it's slow nature).
Plus the affects of Syphilis is so long term, with so many varying physical attributes that some were thought to have been cured, and still died of it years later. Of course the cure for Syphilis before antibiotics was imbibing mercury - which is pretty drastic in itself.
The big question is not the existence of magic, but the prevalence of magic. If 1/3rd of the population can become clerics and 1/3 wizards, then yes the world would be a lot different. If only one person in 1 million can become a magic user of any level, then it will not have much effect on the way the world works.
If a more reasonable level of 1 magic user per 1,000 people is assumed (which seems to accord with non-high/low magic campaigns I've been in), most of them low level, then there won't be much change. Sure a 7th level magic user of the right type can cast 'remove disease' to cure the plague but it would require dozens of them casting in shifts to cure an outbreak in one village before people started dying off, and the cost of hiring those magic users is 210G/cast per the PF rules. Now a person with a profession at 9 skill levels (most will be less I suspect) can expect to make an average of 10G/week plying their trade, so if they live frugally & stash most of their income they can spend 1/2 years profit to have a disease cured, maybe another half year for their spouse and a couple-of-years for children. Sorry but disease is till going to be significant factor in society.
Teleporting assassins? How many 9th level wizards are there who can cast the teleport spell to begin with? And how many of that select few are invited into Royal bedrooms so they can become familiar with them to teleport there? While the idea is possible, and could be pulled off with planning and devotion, it certainly would not be simple, commonplace or inexpensive to do. Dimension Door is an option too, but unless your 7th level minimum wizard is familiar with the royal bed chambers they run the risk of being damaged and shunted into the guards barracks when they try to Dimension Door into a solid object - with a supply of fanatical 7th level wizards it could be done blindly, but how likely is that?
And so on. Unless magic users are common, and those magic users gain levels easily then magic will not have that big an effect on society.
Ring of spell storing major = 200,000 gp.
Caster to put the spell in = 900 gp or more per spell.
Assassin = 10,000 for a high profile job.
Potion of invisibility(for the escape) 750gp.
Regicide = priceless.
It's just that I'm beginning to get annoyed with the argument of 'they didn't do that back then', and I have to keep wondering: when did Europeans live in my homebrew/eberron/FR/Golarion setting?
They recently came across a town that has laws against drawing weapons in public or against folks who are unarmed (even if they're attacking you). I know a Turkish guy who told me that in his country, the gun laws are extremely strict (EXTREMELY STRICT) to the point that if someone breaks into your home and he doesn't have a gun, you can't shoot him (actually, unless he fires his firearm, you still can't shoot him). When I brought this up as an example I kept getting replies of 'things were different back then', and I keep telling them, we're not playing in midieval Europe.
I only use midieval Europe to help fill out blanks, but I prefer to design the rest myself. I intend to have a campaign which will involve much travelling and seeing new cultures, I DON'T want to be constrained by a time period whose laws would limit what I could do with my campaign. One of my intents for the next town they're travelling to, is that carrying weapons outside the servant district (the town uses roachlings and ratfolk indentured servants) will get you jailed and fined. Using that, I'll have them get ambushed by thugs who are using improvised weaponry (the problem is that the current group is loathe to use anything that would lower their attack rolls or damage, sadly I doubt they're interested in any kind of immersion that would lower their capabilities).
Given that after this first town they probably will see less humans than I can count on one hand, what'll their next excuse be? 'Things were different in lord of the rings'? 'They didn't do that back in star trek'? Perhaps 'are you sure this is what they did on the discovery channel' (I intend on trying out a plane where the characters are transformed into different animals along with their stat blocks from the bestiary, taking down hunters and such just to either survive or find druids to translate for them)?
I think perhaps I need to sit down with my group (again) and let them know that the point of this campaign is to see different cultures, travel the planes and experience new ways of life and combat and to experience new things. Problem with my group is that if I don't repeat myself at least a hundred times, it doesn't stick (you should see how angry they were when they started getting ability damage, they thought it was permanent, it took 2-3 times explaining it to them to REALLY get it to stick).
"the gun laws are extremely strict (EXTREMELY STRICT) to the point that if someone breaks into your home and he doesn't have a gun, you can't shoot him (actually, unless he fires his firearm, you still can't shoot him). When I brought this up as an example I kept getting replies of 'things were different back then', and I keep telling them, we're not playing in midieval Europe."
Well that a matter of perspective... I would consider it madness to allow people to shot people who breaks into your home.
Unless your life is threated why should there be any excuse for potientially killing another human being?
But then some will find that breaking an entering as perfectly good excuse to pull out a gun and kill people...
Well that a matter of perspective... I would consider it madness to allow people to shot people who breaks into your home.
Unless your life is threated why should there be any excuse for potientially killing another human being?
Such people are voluntarily giving up their lives if they think it's OK to enter a home without invitation. I don't want my child in my home to be exposed to any possible threats. Someone breaking into my home threatens my child and needs to be stopped with extreme force if possible. How do I know they are not threatening mine or my family's life? They do seem willing not to break in, in the first place - is that not a threat in itself?
I would consider it madness to allow someone to break into my home. If they do, they need to be dead.
In medieval Europe something like 90% of the population were farm laborers which was necessary because all the work had to be done by hand.
The remaining 10% were merchants, craftsmen, constables, priests and the nobility.
If you try to squeeze spellcasters into those numbers they would need to be very, very rare. And medium and high-level casters would be extraordinarily rare (as rare as bishops or university professors).
So there would be few spellcasting priests with enough skill to miraculously cure disease and stem the tide of something as overwhelming as the Bubonic Plague.
In medieval Europe something like 90% of the population were farm laborers which was necessary because all the work had to be done by hand.
The remaining 10% were merchants, craftsmen, constables, priests and the nobility.
If you try to squeeze spellcasters into those numbers they would need to be very, very rare. And medium and high-level casters would be extraordinarily rare (as rare as bishops or university professors).
So there would be few spellcasting priests with enough skill to miraculously cure disease and stem the tide of something as overwhelming as the Bubonic Plague.
Exactly. And as the OP mentioned regarding Darkvision and combat, unless you're talking about a race of Darkvision possessors, in a battle between 2 human sides the likelihood of more than 1 in a thousand (if not greater) to possess Darkvision at all is very rare. It's not like an entire human army with Darkvision cast on all of them. Soldiers are like those farm laborers. They generally aren't enhanced to do their jobs. They just fight and die like any other soldier. It's a non-standard setting if the proliferation of magic is greater than that.
Consider that knights own expensive arms and armor and have years of training to perform their duties in combat. On the other hand most soldiers are conscripts press-ganged into service given a minimal amount of arms and armor and a month of battle training and sent to the front lines. Nobody wants to spend more money than that on a basic soldier. The insane cost of casting any magic on that soldier is unthinkable.
I prefer Dark Ages or older settings where opportunities of finding entire peoples who don't worship the same god as the rest of the continent is still a possibility. In medieval Europe there's only one church - medieval is not what D&D/PF is based on. Romantically perhaps, but realistically not even close.
Exactly. And as the OP mentioned regarding Darkvision and combat, unless you're talking about a race of Darkvision possessors, in a battle between 2 human sides the likelihood of more than 1 in a thousand (if not greater) to possess Darkvision at all is very rare. It's not like an entire human army with Darkvision cast on all of them. Soldiers are like those farm laborers. They generally aren't enhanced to do their jobs. They just fight and die like any other soldier. It's a non-standard setting if the proliferation of magic is greater than that.
Consider that knights own expensive arms and armor and have years of training to perform their duties in combat. On the other hand most soldiers are conscripts press-ganged into service given a minimal amount of arms and armor and a month of battle training and sent to the front lines. Nobody wants to spend more money than that on a basic soldier. The insane cost of casting any magic on that soldier is unthinkable.
I don't know. You're right that it's not going to be worth using magic to enhance them individually, but even in D&D there are some spells that provide small bonuses to allies in an area. Bless is the obvious example. You can fit a lot of soldiers into a 50' burst. The big problem would be duration. A Bard's inspire courage would also be a big boost. Magic effects like that, which give a small boost to lots of troops would be worth using on conscript troops. Probably more so than on elite troops.
And D&D is focused on small unit tactics, so most of the spells are optimized for that. In a real world there would probably be more attention paid to army boosting magic. You'd have more spells that affected a larger number of units with longer durations.
And the original post about Darkvision was talking about the advantage a race of creatures with Darkvision would have, not supplying it with magic to grunts.
Different perceptions to how one runs their games, I suppose. I see PCs as military commanders or special ops units sent away from the main army. The commander's guards, rear commanders and support are gaining the benefits of "allies in certain range" benefits that some classes provide, but there are entire units with no such persons to provide such benefits - most are just armed commoners surrounded by other armed commoners. Anyone in the vicinity of PC parties within an army gains some magical defenses or effects. The bulk of the army sees no such benefits.
This only applies to large standing armies, small unit operations are a completely different matter altogether. The word "army" infers thousands of men to my point of view.
Different perceptions to how one runs their games, I suppose. I see PCs as military commanders or special ops units sent away from the main army. The commander's guards, rear commanders and support are gaining the benefits of "allies in certain range" benefits that some classes provide, but there are entire units with no such persons to provide such benefits - most are just armed commoners. Anyone in the vicinity of PC parties within an army gains some magical defenses or effects. The bulk of the army sees no such benefits.
Yeah, that's probably how it would get run in a PF game. That's partly because there isn't a good way to actually play out mass battles and PF doesn't have a lot of the spells that would probably exist.
If you were actually playing out the whole battle and what the armed commoners did really mattered, small bonuses to large numbers of them would make a big difference. Not necessarily from high level PCs either. Low level clerics and bards spread out behind the front line to bless and inspire would be enough.
Usually you're right. The game is focused on the PCs and the battle basically follows how well they do against the enemy elites.
You beat my edit, but my last line in the previous post confirms my point. It was the use of the word "army" that I was regarding in this discussion, not small units surrounding a PC party - that is not an army, only a possible element of one.
The larger discussion is how magic would affect a medieval society, as in battles of war between large numbers of people where magic could possibly alter the resolution of such conflicts. It wasn't a discussion regarding how PCs and PC magic can affect the game - rather the larger picture with whole populations of concern.
In my setting, Kaidan, for example. Magic is controlled by the state. As in Japan, the ministry of Onmyodo is a branch of the imperial government and have legal, exclusive control on the use of magic. Not that there weren't other spellcasters in their beliefs, but these were all outlaws and a minority. The common use of magic in daily life did not exist in Japan (at least as they believed), and does not exist in Kaidan. Only the elite aristocracy and the rare, covert outlaw does any spellcasting.
You beat my edit, but my last line in the previous post confirms my point. It was the use of the word "army" that I was regarding in this discussion, not small units surrounding a PC party - that is not an army, only a possible element of one.
The larger discussion is how magic would affect a medieval society, as in battles of war between large numbers of people where magic could possibly alter the resolution of such conflicts. It wasn't a discussion regarding how PCs and PC magic can affect the game - rather the larger picture with whole populations of concern.
So you agree with me then? Because I wasn't talking about small units surrounding a PC party. I was talking about low level magic support for that army. Basically relatively small numbers of weak support casters deployed to enhance large numbers of troops.
I agree with in so far as it concerns with PCs and their direct impact on military operations in the game and those immediately surrounding them. Larger units that comprise armies (as was what I thought the discussion concerned) that go fight in wars have no such benefits. Societally, magic has much less impact. In the game, however, PC actions involve small elements - not armies and not entire wars.
In the small sense, I agree, in the larger sense I'm saying the opposite.
I agree with in so far as it concerns with PCs and their direct impact on military operations in the game and those immediately surrounding them. Larger units that comprise armies (as was what I thought the discussion concerned) that go fight in wars have no such benefits. Societally, magic has much less impact. In the game, however, PC actions involve small elements - not armies and not entire wars.
In the small sense, I agree, in the larger sense I'm saying the opposite.
Again, I wasn't talking about PCs or the game, but that in a world with magic there would be ways to use that to support even untrained troops. The specific PF examples were just that, examples. If the effects of that support magic are broad enough, it's worth using on the weak troops. If you can only affect one, or a few, people at a time, then you'd reserve it for the elites.
Not PCs, but priests and bards (or other casters, those would be the PF examples. Adepts as well) traveling with armies as support, as they did in the real world for more mundane reasons.
I'm not sure why we're having trouble understanding here. I think I see what you're saying. I just disagree that magic won't affect the armies. Unless you're thinking of worlds with very little magic. Only a few casters even of low level?
I'm not saying it has no effect at all, after all wars are won on small things, not just big battles. Participating PCs and spellcasters definitely have an impact. In my worlds, and most world settings I am familiar with PCs and casters are less than 1% of the population - they certainly affect the world. To most witnesses a medieval battle looks little different from a typical RPG setting - instances of magic might occur in a fiction, but by in large it's a mundane battle for the most part.
Rather than "things were different back then" (i.e., trying to make a campaign world analogous to some point in Earth's past), perhaps it is more appropriate to say "things are different in that universe" (i.e., it's not Earth, it'll never BE Earth, and when the laws of physics share space and time with the laws of magic, the only things that matter are internal consistency and the logic in the system).
in the end, it's up to the players, who either continue to play in a given GM's world or allow other things to supplant game night. and the most direct influence on the players is the GM--he or she decides what the world is like at every conceivable level of detail. as a GM, one can either fixate and obsess on details the players will never care about; one can do the diametric opposite and ignore blatant inconsistencies in the world/story; or one can find some balanced middle ground and work up enough detail to satisfy his / her group and make a great story.
nearly everything is different in a fantasy world, versus on Earth. one tiny example of this is morality--on Earth, we either have an objective morality (God, who determines one's soul's eternal future) or utterly subjective morality (no God or anyone else deciding whether we're 'good' or 'evil'); in the typical fantasy setting, we have "gods," each with their own moral code and expectations for the people that fill the world.
the lone exception to the "nearly everything is different" rule is this: people are still basically, at their core, like people here. that's the thing that makes the game world something the players can relate to, that makes the story something the players can get invested in. keep that in mind and work with your players to establish a world that works for you and for the rest of the people who set aside their time to play in your world on a regular basis.
i'd like to add one more point here: a lot of the above discussion hinges on how high or low the GM has set the magic content in his or her campaign world. a low-magic setting would have a lot more in common with our Earth than a high-fantasy, high-magic world. if you're looking to create a "realistic" (i.e., internally consistent and logical) fantasy world, magic shops in every village, even INNS in every village is not in line with, say, medieval France. i tend to prefer a lower-magic setting that allows the players to come into contact with (and harness) the higher magics once they've leveled a great deal, which makes their accomplishments feel like actual accomplishments.
In medieval Europe something like 90% of the population were farm laborers which was necessary because all the work had to be done by hand.
The remaining 10% were merchants, craftsmen, constables, priests and the nobility.
But in a world with magic, there would be different "classes" (no pun intended) and at least some tasks, such as farming, might be less labor intensive. (You could still have farmers doing backbreaking labor, but might need only 2/3rds of them if you have agricultural priests who cast
Plant Growth after all that work is done.)
Quote:
So there would be few spellcasting priests with enough skill to miraculously cure disease and stem the tide of something as overwhelming as the Bubonic Plague.
I would agree with this... but the numbers of nobles dying might be much less, which would have an impact on the world.
thejeff wrote:
You're right that it's not going to be worth using magic to enhance them individually, but even in D&D there are some spells that provide small bonuses to allies in an area. Bless is the obvious example. You can fit a lot of soldiers into a 50' burst. The big problem would be duration. A Bard's inspire courage would also be a big boost. Magic effects like that, which give a small boost to lots of troops would be worth using on conscript troops. Probably more so than on elite troops.
I believe in Eberron hobgoblins bards do exactly that. (Although their bards frequently support "special forces" rather than doing grunt work like that.)
gamer-printer wrote:
I'm not saying it has no effect at all, after all wars are won on small things, not just big battles. Participating PCs and spellcasters definitely have an impact. In my worlds, and most world settings I am familiar with PCs and casters are less than 1% of the population - they certainly affect the world. To most witnesses a medieval battle looks little different from a typical RPG setting - instances of magic might occur in a fiction, but by in large it's a mundane battle for the most part.
I think magic would have a bigger effect on a battle. This is because, as you said, battles are decided by the "small things".
A battle might be decided because one size seized a strategic hill first. Concentrate your PCs and magic users on that one hill, and what you end up with are clashing bands of mercenaries on both sides. Whoever wins then lets their army mop up.
(Heroes of Battle uses very similar rules. You divide a large battle into numerous setpieces, such as the artillery, supply, command areas, and so forth. Whichever side rocks the other's important areas win. I'd expect there to be lots of sabotage and assassinations in the midst of a battle. I'm not expecting large-scale buffing though.)
Historically, anyone old was considered to have magic powers. Every village had one elder who they thought could cure plagues and such. If placebos like spirit masks and rattles could have that much effect, real casters would have even more effect.
I am so going to work on some rituals for mass curing and combat.
"the gun laws are extremely strict (EXTREMELY STRICT) to the point that if someone breaks into your home and he doesn't have a gun, you can't shoot him (actually, unless he fires his firearm, you still can't shoot him). When I brought this up as an example I kept getting replies of 'things were different back then', and I keep telling them, we're not playing in midieval Europe."
Well that a matter of perspective... I would consider it madness to allow people to shot people who breaks into your home.
Unless your life is threated why should there be any excuse for potientially killing another human being?
But then some will find that breaking an entering as perfectly good excuse to pull out a gun and kill people...
I come from a country that doesn't allow civilians to own guns (and thankfully, gun related crimes are very rare because of it), I only brought up the strict part because I'm assuming I'm talking to American members who are used to the ability to buy a gun pretty easily. I brought up the part about shooting intruders because the idea I want to impart to my players is that excessive force is usually unnecessary and almost always illegal (pretty much in DnD, if a commoner/expert breaks into a PC's house, it wouldn't take much to subdue or repel the intruder (ESPECIALLY for a PC)).
Historically, anyone old was considered to have magic powers. Every village had one elder who they thought could cure plagues and such. If placebos like spirit masks and rattles could have that much effect, real casters would have even more effect.
I am so going to work on some rituals for mass curing and combat.
According to the NPC Codex, the typical village elder is 8th-level. I don't recall if they're a commoner or aristocrat, but probably the former. If we changed that to make the typical elder an 8th-level adept, things would get ... interesting.
A typical adept gets these spells: 3 0th, 3 1st, 2 2nd, and 0 3rd. Assuming starting Wis 15 (13 + 2 human racial bonus), gaining 2 points due to levels and another 2 due to age, we have Wis 19, enough for a bonus 3rd-level spell. So 1 3rd-level spell :) Remove Disease is a 3rd-level spell.
With their wealth (honestly, shouldn't NPC classes have less wealth? Or do they?) they can probably afford a few scrolls, or maybe even a Pearl of Power (3rd).
The adept must make a caster level check against the level of the disease, but even something like smallpox is probably a low-level disease. (Most human NPCs are low-level and suffer a high risk of death.)
Unfortunately, the adept can do this only once per day, and by the time they're aware of an epidemic, enough people would be infected that even dragging up all the obviously infected people and spamming Scrolls of Remove Disease at them won't clear up the epidemic. At this point, the adept is casting Remove Disease once, or perhaps twice, per day. I'm thinking the elder will use the spells on himself, friends and "important people" first, unless they're lawful good.
If there's any spells that give bonuses to save against disease (and I think there's a spell like that for 0 or 1st-level) at least the adept can cast said spell a few times per day.
I'm not too familiar with Pathfinder rules for statting up villages. Is an 8th-level adept per village actually rational?
The best way to handle an epidemic would be to use a specific magic item for that. If you have an item that can cast Remove Disease in an AoE once per day, bought by the local noble and donated the church, you could substantially cut back on the plague. Having said that, not every village will do this. Another village might have a Plant Growth item instead, and while they can't fight disease, they can sustain a larger population, and can "afford" more deaths (not that anyone is likely to think in such cold-blooded terms).
But in a world with magic, there would be different "classes" (no pun intended) and at least some tasks, such as farming, might be less labor intensive. (You could still have farmers doing backbreaking labor, but might need only 2/3rds of them if you have agricultural priests who cast
Plant Growth after all that work is done.)
The most labor-intensive part is the grain harvest because there is only a short window to harvest it all. I can't think of any clerical spells that would really help much with that.
The gods might also object to their divine magic being used for mundane purposes, especially if they preach that sloth is a sin and hard work a virtue. (Evil gods should be the only ones offering unearned wealth and a life of ease in return for favors.)
Presumably the gods also have a limited amount of divine mana. And if hundreds of thousands of clerics are drawing from that pool daily for mundane things like agriculture that would be an enormous drain on their resources and not really serving the religion in any specific way.
The most labor-intensive part is the grain harvest because there is only a short window to harvest it all. I can't think of any clerical spells that would really help much with that.
Being a city boy, I didn't know that :)
Quote:
The gods might also object to their divine magic being used for mundane purposes, especially if they preach that sloth is a sin and hard work a virtue. (Evil gods should be the only ones offering unearned wealth and a life of ease in return for favors.)
I doubt that. Making a third of the population dependent on a god's spells is its own reward.
It makes even more sense for druids. You could grow an extra third or half of food in the same area, so that's leaving more ground for the wild. That's directly supporting a druid's agenda. (A hippie druid, in any event. Other druids might hate farmers.)
Quote:
Presumably the gods also have a limited amount of divine mana.
I've never seen that stated anywhere, or even implied. Certainly wizards can keep spamming spells, every day, especially those without material components.
1) There is an equivalent for "Common" tongue in our world; it's called Esperanto. It just never gained the widespread acceptance that Common did in Golaron and other stereotypical fantasy settings.
No, Esperanto is not "Common". The reason "Common" language is called "Common" is because it is the most common language and the default one for interaction. There is a "Common" in our world, and there always has been one or another. While which language is "Common" changes over time, it is always the language of the most powerful economic/military/religious culture. Currently it is English. If you don't live in an English speaking country, and you don't live in a tiny village in the middle of nowhere in a third world country you have studied English in school.
We only had a small garden on our almost an acre. But yeah, all of a specific crop had to be harvested the same day. Ironicly, boots of speed will help you get the crop in before the storm hits.
Mandrake root was a special commodity even in frontier days. Instead of TV and Video games, people used to spend their spare time searching the woods for them. Some started farming mandrake. If you could sell your entire crop of mandrake for a half used wand of resist disease, you would. You would test the wand before buying, of course. Resist disease gives you another save at +1(per 5 levels, minimum 1). If you recover, you are immune. I'm not sure if resist disease should be 1st or second level.
1) There is an equivalent for "Common" tongue in our world; it's called Esperanto. It just never gained the widespread acceptance that Common did in Golaron and other stereotypical fantasy settings.
No, Esperanto is not "Common". The reason "Common" language is called "Common" is because it is the most common language and the default one for interaction. There is a "Common" in our world, and there always has been one or another. While which language is "Common" changes over time, it is always the language of the most powerful economic/military/religious culture. Currently it is English. If you don't live in an English speaking country, and you don't live in a tiny village in the middle of nowhere in a third world country you have studied English in school.
Still far less widespread than Common in D&D usage. And English is more universal than any language in the past. Other versions of "Common" were far more regional.
There are still less (or not many more, depending on the estimate) English speakers than Mandarin and less than a quarter of the world's population.
And "studied English in school" may not mean much. I studied French in school. Doesn't mean I could communicate in it. :)
