RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The more I read people's comments, the more I keep trying to go back and re-frame the real question for more clarity.
Currently, here's how I understand the topic:
Obviously, NPCs' reactions to seeing you cast a spell will vary with circumstances. But so will any other action ever. So the real question is not "How do NPCs react to spellcasting?", but rather "All else being equal, will NPCs react differently to spellcasting than they would to any other comparable action that a PC might have done in the same situation?"
For example, suppose the situation is that you've met an injured person in the wilderness, calmed them down with some Diplomacy (maybe even made them Friendly), and they've accepted your offer to treat their wounds. You then either:
A) Reach for your pack, intending to retrieve your healer's kit; or
B) Start casting a cure spell.
Either way, the NPC is expecting healing of some sort. Will they react differently to the casting of a (technically unknown) spell than they would to you reaching for a (technically unknown) object from your pack?
There are some in this thread whose position appears to be that a reaction to spellcasting will almost always be hostile, such that in the above example the injured person would think you've tricked them and are now probably attacking them with shocking grasp or something. Others think that spellcasting is treated little-to-no differently than other actions, such that in the above example the injured person who already believes you intend to heal them would assume the spell is going to do just that.
Does that sound like an accurate representation of the topic and positions so far?
|
Not entirely.
Your example is way too leading. It makes the hostile reaction seem ludicrous and tge trusting one seem exceedingly reasonable.
You've created a situation where not all else is equal, because you talked to the guy and gained his trust.
In this situation, the all else being equal would be to run up to the guy before talking to him and reach into your pack or start casting a spell.
The reaction might be different. While likely not hostile, he might be skittish. But less so for the reaching into your pack.
Every situation has to be weighed on its own merits. And you can't boil it down to a single thought process. Just like you can't assume anything from an NPC just because you talk to them.
I encourage further dialogue, but discourage more distillation.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think you missed the point of my post, Andrew.
The example was only an example. Your example is another example. The point is, take any situation—including "politely offer to heal", "walk up and do something without announcement", or even "scowl at the guard who just shut you down and then do X"—and then consider a magical action and a comparable nonmagical action. Would the two reactions be substantially different?
That's what I'm trying to ask.
What it sounds like you thought I was saying was that if spellcasting is okay in the example I gave then it should be okay everywhere. I think you might have gotten a little sensitive to the example and failed to see the point I was making. Perhaps try re-reading the rest of the post, skipping the example altogether? That might make it more clear what I'm actually talking about.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Does that sound like an accurate representation of the topic and positions so far?
I would say, no, this is not an accurate representation. Your example works on an atmosphere of trust possibly created by a diplomacy check. I believe the real question here is, "How would NPCs react to spell casting when they don't know if they can trust you?"
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Oh for the love of Aroden. See my reply to Andrew, and try re-reading my earlier post without the example at all. If you think the situation used in the example is in any way material to my point, you haven't read my post carefully at all.
In still say my question is the real question. We have a good idea of how they would react if they trust you and a good idea how they would react if they mistrust you. The ambiguity lies in how they would respond when they don't know if they can trust you or not.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I disagree. I think the question of this thread is not "How would they react?" so much as "Would they react (in any given situation, including the situation you're so focused on) differently than they would to a similar action taken in that same situation?"
So you want to focus on when they don't know whether to trust you or not? That's completely fine. That makes literally zero difference to what I was saying in my post. So using the example you're so desperately wanting to focus on, I reiterate:
When an NPC who isn't sure whether to trust you or not react differently to spellcasting than they would to a comparable nonmagical action in the same situation?
And again, the question is NOT "How would they react to spellcasting?", it is "Would they react differently to spellcasting than to other comparable actions in the same situation?"
|
|
I think you missed the point of my post, Andrew.
The example was only an example. Your example is another example. The point is, take any situation—including "politely offer to heal", "walk up and do something without announcement", or even "scowl at the guard who just shut you down and then do X"—and then consider a magical action and a comparable nonmagical action. Would the two reactions be substantially different?
That's what I'm trying to ask.
What it sounds like you thought I was saying was that if spellcasting is okay in the example I gave then it should be okay everywhere. I think you might have gotten a little sensitive to the example and failed to see the point I was making. Perhaps try re-reading the rest of the post, skipping the example altogether? That might make it more clear what I'm actually talking about.
Depends on the circumstances. In some cases the reaction might be the same. In others it wouldn't be.
|
|
I disagree. I think the question of this thread is not "How would they react?" so much as "Would they react (in any given situation, including the situation you're so focused on) differently than they would to a similar action taken in that same situation?"
So you want to focus on when they don't know whether to trust you or not? That's completely fine. That makes literally zero difference to what I was saying in my post. So using the example you're so desperately wanting to focus on, I reiterate:
When an NPC who isn't sure whether to trust you or not react differently to spellcasting than they would to a comparable nonmagical action in the same situation?
And again, the question is NOT "How would they react to spellcasting?", it is "Would they react differently to spellcasting than to other comparable actions in the same situation?"
If your point was so separate from your example, why provide such a weighted example?
I think that depending on the circumstances, one would react differently or the same to magic or some other stimulus dependent wholly on the circumstances.
In other words you cannot separate spellcasting, drawing a dagger, talking, intimidating, searching through your pack, etc from the circumstances. Every act could have a gamut of responses based on the circumstance.
I think you are trying to indicate that spellcasting in Golarion is lumped in with all sorts of mundane acts (drawing a dagger, talking, or searching your pack). But you can't. Because magic is different. It, by its very definition is not a mundane act.
Someone posted it earlier. There is language from the ISWG that defines how magic is generally viewed.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think you are trying to indicate that spellcasting in Golarion is lumped in with all sorts of mundane acts (drawing a dagger, talking, or searching your pack).
No, I'm trying to define the question as asking whether or not we should.
But you've now answered the question, so I guess I must have finally communicated what is; if only I could have also successfully communicated that I was just trying to define the question.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Same reaction in this case. The person knows they need help, they know that magic or something in your bag would be handy right about now.
What about more generally? Would the similarity of response (whether said response is hostile or not) between spellcasting and other comparable actions hold steady for most situations?
|
|
Same reaction in this case. The person knows they need help, they know that magic or something in your bag would be handy right about now.What about more generally? Would the similarity of response (whether said response is hostile or not) between spellcasting and other comparable actions hold steady for most situations?
Probably not.
In your example the person is in need of help. The character has offered help.
Whether the character reaches into a bag or starts casting a spell the presumption is that help of some sort is coming. This largely takes out the "Oh sweet desna is he trimming his toenails or casting a fireball!??" question in someone's head.
|
|
Where this argument is boiling down to is looking for a baseline reaction. Since Jiggy's example was too heavily weighted in favor of trustworthy, let's strip that all away.
Location: City of some sort. I would say somewhere that magic is common enough people might cast it in the streets.
Who: Two people, one NPC that is not trained in magical arts and one person who is trained in magical arts. The caster is not wearing any clothing to indicate that he/she is a caster. (Normal everyday clothes, no spellbook, no holy symbol, etc.) Also, both people are considered neutral to each other for the sake of diplomacy.
Actions: Non-caster is just walking down the road, minding their own business. Caster starts to cast a spell, no indication of what type of spell, no demeanor, not looking at the non-caster. If you want to further argue this, since most casting times are 6 seconds or less, no visible spell effects afterwards.
Question: How does the non-caster react? (Using examples following along with diplomacy guidelines.)
1. Hostile: Either runs away in fear, calls guards, shoots person in the face.
2. Unfriendly: Keeps an eye on the caster with distrust, but doesn't do anything immediately.
3. Neutral: Just keeps on walking and doesn't pay attention to the caster.
4. Friendly: Nods politely to the caster.
5. Helpful: Asks for a spell to be cast on him/asks for some magical assistance of some sort.
I feel a neutral situation across the board would help figure out how a generic NPC would react to a generic caster.
In my opinion and how I feel like most people would play this, the NPC started at neutral and will continue on as neutral. In my ideal world, I would imagine that most "magic neutral" cities are going to react in this way. For a city that something has happened to them (Disaster brought on by magic, economic boom brought on by magic), this would change the whole cities disposition in regards to magic and how the general populace reacts.
|
In my experience, it really tends to vary by a) the setting, b) the locale within the setting, and then c) the people you're around.Fly, do you think your opinion would change if, say back when D&D 3.0 was created, WotC also released an entire book filled with spells focused on non-combat applications? What if the number of spells to increase productivity were double the number of spells that had damage dice in them?
Let's see:
1. Spells to fertilize fields. Plant growth
2. Spells to clean the streets. Prestidigitation.
3. Spells to wash your horse. Prestidigitation.
4. Spells to do the laundry. Prestidigitation.
5. Spells to wash the dishes. Prestidigitation.
6. Spells to clean the outhouse. Prestidigitation.
7. Spells to haul manure. Unseen servant.
8. Spells to find gold. Maybe locate object?
9. Spells to tell when someone is lying. Zone of Truth.
10. Spells to entertain audiences. Prestidigitation.
11. Spell to make dynamic clothing. Prestidigitation.
12 Spells to pacify crying infants (What rich household wouldn't have a Sleep wand, eh?) Lullaby
13. Spells to feed soliders. Purify food and Drink all the way to heroes feast.
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but these utility spells already exist, and most of them are one cantrip. If magic was really as common as so many want to believe, why isn't every houskeeper with an average intelligence a level 1 wizard?
14. Spells to water crops
15. Spell to sanitize food.
16. Spells to identify poisonous mushrooms.
17. Spells to stop poisonous bites.
18. Spells to find lost children.
I could go on. Now ask yourself how many of the things on the list could be accomplished with existing spells? If it's more than half, do you think that my say something about how common magic use would really be? Is it possible that using wands in public to clean your clothes, or having an adept casting spells might even be seen as an indicator of social status?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Actions: Non-caster is just walking down the road, minding their own business. Caster starts to cast a spell, no indication of what type of spell, no demeanor, not looking at the non-caster. If you want to further argue this, since most casting times are 6 seconds or less, no visible spell effects afterwards.
Question: How does the non-caster react?
In my game, it would probably be something like, "Huh. That guy's a bit odd..." Shrug, shake head, keep walking. Since there's no interaction at all in the example, there isn't really anything to react *to*.
Let's take a couple of comparable, non-magic scenarios and see how they stand up:
Actions: Non-caster is just walking down the road, minding their own business. Caster slings off his backpack, rifles around for a few seconds, and reaches in to retrieve some item. No indication of what type of item, no demeanor, not looking at the non-caster.
(In this case, I personally wouldn't think the NPC would react at all, unless maybe the caster were blocking traffic or something.)
Actions: Non-caster is just walking down the road, minding their own business. Caster draws a sword and takes a couple swings at the air in front of him. No indication of what (if anything) he's attacking, no demeanor, not looking at the non-caster.
(In this case, I personally would have the NPC back away slowly and keep an eye on the crazy guy with a sword standing in the middle of the street.)
|
|
Actions: Non-caster is just walking down the road, minding their own business. Caster starts to cast a spell, no indication of what type of spell, no demeanor, not looking at the non-caster. If you want to further argue this, since most casting times are 6 seconds or less, no visible spell effects afterwards.
Question: How does the non-caster react? (Using examples following along with diplomacy guidelines.)
I would say he gives a quick look left and right for a burning building , trying not to let the caster know they're looking. Assuming they don't see one the onlooker moves to the other side of the street and keeps walking like nothings wrong.
|
|
Actions: Non-caster is just walking down the road, minding their own business. Caster starts to cast a spell, no indication of what type of spell, no demeanor, not looking at the non-caster. If you want to further argue this, since most casting times are 6 seconds or less, no visible spell effects afterwards.
Question: How does the non-caster react?
In my game, it would probably be something like, "Huh. That guy's a bit odd..." Shrug, shake head, keep walking. Since there's no interaction at all in the example, there isn't really anything to react *to*.
Let's take a couple of comparable, non-magic scenarios and see how they stand up:
Actions: Non-caster is just walking down the road, minding their own business. Caster slings off his backpack, rifles around for a few seconds, and reaches in to retrieve some item. No indication of what type of item, no demeanor, not looking at the non-caster.
(In this case, I personally wouldn't think the NPC would react at all, unless maybe the caster were blocking traffic or something.)
Actions: Non-caster is just walking down the road, minding their own business. Caster draws a sword and takes a couple swings at the air in front of him. No indication of what (if anything) he's attacking, no demeanor, not looking at the non-caster.
(In this case, I personally would have the NPC back away slowly and keep an eye on the crazy guy with a sword standing in the middle of the street.)
I like your other examples and reactions, along with BigNorseWolf's. Without having to into a leadership style chart to determine the NPC's reaction to the caster, I think in a neutral situation, there's nothing to react to, so maybe just a "huh, oddball" type curiosity and just keep walking. I would probably put the non-caster's reaction in line more with the sword example. Of course, that's more how I hope the world would react and in my scenario's, the would react.
Once we start throwing in variables into the mix, then the demeanor of the non-caster will change. Clichéd robe and wizard hat? Maybe a negative reaction. Fire coming from the caster's hands? Negative reaction. Cleric vestments and holy symbol of Sarenrae? Positive reaction. Cleric vestments and holy symbol of Asmodeous? Negative reaction. (Well, depends on what the cities primary deity is, but hopefully this makes a good point.)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Oh for the love of Aroden.
I feel like this thread was once a fun, creative exercise in worldbuilding, but has now become a defense of that theoretical exercise. I hope John decides to use this as the basis for a blog post, though I'm not sure I find this argument worth the energy anymore. Keep on fighting the good fight! While I'm very interested in the topic, I just don't want to keep arguing on the internet.
This conversation has led me to decide that as a GM, I do plan to use an approach of very-frequent magic use in PFS, as I believe the rules and setting suggest, until I hear otherwise from campaign leadership. I encourage other people to make their own decisions and leave it at that.
|
|
It's given me much to think about as well. I've decided to start up a winter social event on the Taldor board, and magic's role in the event is something I have had to both consider and account for.
Also, my Sunday group had a chat about Sense Motive, provoked by points made in this thread.
So thanks for this thread!
-Matt
In my experience, it really tends to vary by a) the setting, b) the locale within the setting, and then c) the people you're around.Fly, do you think your opinion would change if, say back when D&D 3.0 was created, WotC also released an entire book filled with spells focused on non-combat applications? What if the number of spells to increase productivity were double the number of spells that had damage dice in them?
For example,
1. Spells to fertilize fields...
Following along with what Mystic Lemur said, these spells all already exist, it's simply that a lot of people never bother to use them for those utilitarian purposes. And actually, in several games I've participated in, this has been exactly the case. Back in 3.5, in many of our homebrew settings, it was almost unheard of for a high-ranking aristocrat to not have at least twenty eternal wands of prestidigitation, just for emergency cleanups and such. Heck, in a game we're playing right now in the Birthright setting, we've slowly but surely worked our way up to being lesser nobility in one of the Dukedoms, and have made very short work of a lot of mundane tasks by enhancing it with magic. (I.E. building keeps with Lyres of Building, employing a small platoon of druids to fertilize and grow fields to get us started, the elf in our party has taken it upon himself to hire same said druids to grow a giant forest around his keep.)
The idea being that in a lot of our games, magic is far more common. While it may not be commonly USED it is commonly encountered by many common folk (especially the ones that live around our group :P), and so in such a scenario many commoners (as I previously mentioned) would likely only give you a funny look if you start casting and things start exploding. And yes, in many of our cases, access to magic items and such are easily indicators of social status, with mostly nobility being able to afford magic items at all.
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but these utility spells already exist, and most of them are one cantrip. If magic was really as common as so many want to believe, why isn't every houskeeper with an average intelligence a level 1 wizard?
Just a quick side-track here, I don't think intelligence is the only factor in becoming a wizard. It still usually involves some part of unique talent in order to pull it off. Although, now that you have mentioned the idea, I have fabulous idea for a noble who forces everyone in his employ to achieve at least basic wizard training before they're allowed to work. Fascinating.
...it's simply that a lot of people never bother to use them for those utilitarian purposes.Do you mean PCs or NPCs?
In my experience, more latter than the former, but often both.
Except for using prestidigitation to clean yourself. That one is pretty common, especially when we get stuck in a swamp or something.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Then what's your source for stating that NPCs generally don't use spells for utilitarian purposes?
I recall one scenario in particular with a wand of purify food and drink hanging next to a basin in which harbor water was collected, with a sign saying something like "Please only use when basin is full, to conserve charges."
Should the PCs have considered that mundane or unusual when they saw it?
Then what's your source for stating that NPCs generally don't use spells for utilitarian purposes?
I recall one scenario in particular with a wand of purify food and drink hanging next to a basin in which harbor water was collected, with a sign saying something like "Please only use when basin is full, to conserve charges."
Should the PCs have considered that mundane or unusual when they saw it?
By scenario, I'm not sure if you mean something you've encountered, or something out of an AP. I'm really only drawing on my own experience, and in my experience that would have been uncommon, but we likely would've simply written it off as a good idea and moved on.
Generally in my experience (again, all homebrew settings or games), most NPCs have little to no access to magic, unless some benefactor, either a lord or noble or kind adventurer, supplies it to them. How the commoners use the magic would more than likely be utilitarian, but I guess this falls into those "background" scenes that we have probably glazed over in the past. It's quite possible that it's more common than I've encountered, but because it was never brought up, I just didn't think about it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Location: City of some sort. I would say somewhere that magic is common enough people might cast it in the streets.
If we are going by that presumption, I agree with you. If casting ( I assume non-hostile) spells is something you normally see on the streets then seeing yet another person doing it would incur a neutral reaction from most people. But I would argue that just because magic is common does not mean people go around casting spells in the street commonly. When you have something as potentially dangerous as spells there is going to be some form of etiquette regarding when and how you can cast spells in a social environment at a minimum, with laws regarding it to be much more likely. In a civilized environment the average person wants to feel safe. If there is no form of restriction, either social or legal, regarding the casting of potentially destructive spells, then people won't feel safe about spell casting. Even in wild west frontier towns where there were just as many good uses for guns as bad ones, there were frequently laws restricting gun use in town.
|
|
Trying to get used to a new phone. Should have hit preview first.
I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Law and medicine are common to everyone in the US and arguably all of Western Europe, but every household doesn't have lawyer or doctor as an occupation.
Perfect example. If I walk up to you and try to force you to swallow a pill but don't tell you what it is or what it's used for, are you going to swallow it? Millions of people die every year from preventable med errors made by people who do know what their doing, why would you trust someone you have no reason to?
If I walk up to you and tell you the law says I can take your stuff, are you going to hand it over on faith, or are you going to be suspicious? Maybe even hire your own mage... er... lawyer to check me out?
Yet somehow we're expected to believe that the average person, who mechanically knows exactly as much about magic as the average person in the real world knows about medicine or law, would just let anyone they met cast random spells at or near them without batting an eye? It's not like they can put the spell components into google to get a rough idea.
You may have seen Brother Thomas cast healing spells a hundred times, but the first time the village is attacked and he lets loose with a flame strike you're never going to look at him the same way again.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may have seen Brother Thomas cast healing spells a hundred times, but the first time the village is attacked and he lets loose with a flame strike you're never going to look at him the same way again.
You mean they'll finally respect my strength as a cleric of the Inheritor and stop telling me to wait behind them until they get a boo-boo?
|
|
It's quite possible that it's more common than I've encountered, but because it was never brought up, I just didn't think about it.
This is why I'm enjoying this thread. In my mind, it's bringing up those background scenes in my head into something more like a commoner might see. Does the local nobility hire out trainee wizards to cast prestidigitation as part of their "training"? When you walk into the mayor's house? Is there a wizard and/or paladin casting detect magic/detect evil? *sarcasm* Does the farmer who plants everything by hand get the "organic" seal on his crops while the farmer who uses magic doesn't?
Jiggy, the example with the purify food and water wand would make me, in the eyes of an adventurer, say to myself "Huh, good idea!" I wouldn't take the wand out of respect of the citizens, especially if that's a home game. It makes me think of different spells that could be used for every day situations that you might find evidence of around the area, almost like a toolshed with a wand of create water handy. (You could even paint it red like a fire extinguisher!)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Then what's your source for stating that NPCs generally don't use spells for utilitarian purposes?
I recall one scenario in particular with a wand of purify food and drink hanging next to a basin in which harbor water was collected, with a sign saying something like "Please only use when basin is full, to conserve charges."
Should the PCs have considered that mundane or unusual when they saw it?
I would actually consider it unusual simply because the cost of a Wand of Purify Food & Drink is well beyond the means of the vast majority of the population of Galorion. In fact, the cost is an indicator of the commonality of magic, i.e. in Galorion, magic is really only common for the wealthy. A simple Potion of Cure Light Wounds is over 50 times the average daily wage of a common laborer.
|
|
Then what's your source for stating that NPCs generally don't use spells for utilitarian purposes?
For divine casters, you only have 1-2 spells a day granted from your god and you could be 4 hours from the nearest other caster. You really need to save both of them just in case Farmer Brown gets gored by his pigs and Jack has a tree land on him in the same day.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Then what's your source for stating that NPCs generally don't use spells for utilitarian purposes?
I recall one scenario in particular with a wand of purify food and drink hanging next to a basin in which harbor water was collected, with a sign saying something like "Please only use when basin is full, to conserve charges."
Should the PCs have considered that mundane or unusual when they saw it?
By scenario, I'm not sure if you mean something you've encountered, or something out of an AP. I'm really only drawing on my own experience, and in my experience that would have been uncommon, but we likely would've simply written it off as a good idea and moved on.
It was from a Pathfinder Society scenario. I remember that one; it was a lot of fun! :-)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Magic items are uncommon for the non-wealthy. Being an Adept so you can cast your own spells requires little more than a decent WIS score and wanting it really hard, so no, the cost of magic items does not indicate the (non-)commonality of magic.
You are correct. A more accurate indicator of commonality would be the cost of hiring someone else to cast the spell, which is still a pretty big chunk of change though a commoner might be able to save up enough for a 1st level spell with a good deal of effort. Anything beyond first level gets pretty prohibitive.
|
I would actually consider it unusual simply because the cost of a Wand of Purify Food & Drink is well beyond the means of the vast majority of the population of Galorion. In fact, the cost is an indicator of the commonality of magic, i.e. in Galorion, magic is really only common for the wealthy. A simple Potion of Cure Light Wounds is over 50 times the average daily wage of a common laborer.
I would like to add on to this.seeing that people believe that a single gold is not a lot to an average villager is a bit off. If you consider putting 2 extra 0s into the equation, you can start to grasp how much some is worth to a npc. Pushing that, a level 1 scroll to an average farmer is like someone carrying $2500 on a piece of parchment.
We as players tend to forget the relative cost of our magical gear in comparison to what normal people have.
This in turn with people with magical gear and/or spells, a regular foot soldier would be ever weary to someone who is strutting around with a ton of gold invested into their stuff.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@trollbill: I don't need to have personally hired a spellcaster for the notion of spellcasting to be common/mundane for me. I can't afford a smartphone, but it doesn't feel out of place when other people use them around me. I can't afford a lawyer, but the notion of people practicing law is entirely mundane to me (despite all the terrible things a wicked wielder of law could accomplish). I only see a doctor if someone else is footing the bill, but I don't observe the doctor as though he were strange and exotic.
Sorry, but the notion that familiarity with magic is based on how many people can afford to be the recipient of hired services just doesn't hold water.
@trollbill: I don't need to have personally hired a spellcaster for the notion of spellcasting to be common/mundane for me. I can't afford a smartphone, but it doesn't feel out of place when other people use them around me. I can't afford a lawyer, but the notion of people practicing law is entirely mundane to me (despite all the terrible things a wicked wielder of law could accomplish). I only see a doctor if someone else is footing the bill, but I don't observe the doctor as though he were strange and exotic.
Sorry, but the notion that familiarity with magic is based on how many people can afford to be the recipient of hired services just doesn't hold water.
I feel like this is a very strong analogy to the current discussion. Essentially being that, commonality of magic may not translate to accessibility, but that doesn't mean people won't recognize it for what it is.
That is to say that just because people can't use or own magic doesn't mean they aren't aware at least on some level of what it is. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if in many games a great deal of commoners knew a fair amount about magic (how to determine divine vs arcane, perhaps even a basic understanding of how spells work, etc), but they simply don't use it themselves.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
@trollbill: I don't need to have personally hired a spellcaster for the notion of spellcasting to be common/mundane for me. I can't afford a smartphone, but it doesn't feel out of place when other people use them around me. I can't afford a lawyer, but the notion of people practicing law is entirely mundane to me (despite all the terrible things a wicked wielder of law could accomplish). I only see a doctor if someone else is footing the bill, but I don't observe the doctor as though he were strange and exotic.
Sorry, but the notion that familiarity with magic is based on how many people can afford to be the recipient of hired services just doesn't hold water.
Jiggy, we are mixing up some points here. There are two points:
1) Was the wand in that scenario mundane?
2) Is the cost of spell casting services an indication of the commonality of magic in a society?
As to #1, the original cost of purchasing a Wand of Purify Food & Water is more than the average commoner earns in a year. So in this case, I would find such a thing non-mundane in normal society, though it might actually be something you find in a well-to-do merchants home or at your local Pathfinder Lodge.
As to #2, all of your points are valid but none of them actually invalidate my point. The cost of spell casting service is an indicator.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
@trollbill: I don't need to have personally hired a spellcaster for the notion of spellcasting to be common/mundane for me. I can't afford a smartphone, but it doesn't feel out of place when other people use them around me. I can't afford a lawyer, but the notion of people practicing law is entirely mundane to me (despite all the terrible things a wicked wielder of law could accomplish). I only see a doctor if someone else is footing the bill, but I don't observe the doctor as though he were strange and exotic.
Sorry, but the notion that familiarity with magic is based on how many people can afford to be the recipient of hired services just doesn't hold water.
It's simple economics. The law of supply and demand. The more affordable something is, the more common it will be. And the less common it is, the more expensive it will be. Doesn't matter whether its a smart phone (or perhaps more accurately, a smart phone plan) or spell casting services.