|
Or a lot of the changes in society you could theoretically expect from the rules just don't exist. I mean castles and fortresses are still a thing, even though magic gives you 40 ways from sunday of making them useless, every throne room would be in an anti magic zone out of paranoia, and assassinations would be kind of pointless anyway with resomatic clerics.
Or a lot of the changes in society you could theoretically expect from the rules just don't exist. I mean castles and fortresses are still a thing, even though magic gives you 40 ways from sunday of making them useless, every throne room would be in an anti magic zone out of paranoia, and assassinations would be kind of pointless anyway with resomatic clerics.
Ah reality, how seldom we see you rear your ugly head.
I think this kind of falls under the "suspension of disbelief" aspect of the game. Or this is where the higher realms of magic break down, because people either can't afford to pay someone to keep an AMF up at all times, or you don't have nearly enough high-level clerics around to rez people on a whim, or perhaps their god doesn't let them do so willy-nilly (is my main gm's usual response to WHY DON'T WE JUST RAISE DEAD THE PEASANT?)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Or a lot of the changes in society you could theoretically expect from the rules just don't exist. I mean castles and fortresses are still a thing, even though magic gives you 40 ways from sunday of making them useless,
Like I've tried pointing out from the other direction, magic in general is familiar to the masses, while the actual power to do something like render a castle pointless is very rare.
every throne room would be in an anti magic zone out of paranoia,
How do you know they're not? (Though if the king is a caster, it sure won't be.)
I've been in a marketplace under an AMF, so throne rooms wouldn't surprise me.
and assassinations would be kind of pointless anyway with resomatic clerics.
Again, higher-level magic can be rare without making the event of seeing someone cast a spell something to inspire awe and wonder.
|
The major difference between technology and magic is that the latter is not subject to the cost breaks that mass production enables. It was Henry Ford's assembly line that made cars affordable to people other than the super rich. Prior to then, each car was handcrafted and assembled individually. There is no way to mass produce wands of even the simplest cantrips and orisons. They will always cost the minimum of 375 gold for a cantrip/orison wand at first level.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 spell casting services.@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 am not sure I see what your point is. That minimum cost (actually the "cost" is only half that, 375 is the full retail), is going to effect commonality. Supply and Demand will effect how much profit someone is willing to make off of that 187.5 gp cost. In pathfinder, the price to buy a magic item is static for simplicity's sake, but in reality, I would think the price would vary greatly.
|
|
During one run of First Steps, we had a Kitsune player, who was a GM and had played it before. I simply added an AMF to the meeting room with Ambrose Valsine so the Kistune would have to assume his true form.
In reality, the use of an AMF in a throne room is probably more detrimental than beneficial. A King can afford overpowered items and a host of protective spells cast each morning, as well as being flanked by Quickened casters. Not sure why he'd want to leave himself susceptible to martial types.
He wouldn't. That's why most people aren't allowed to bring weapons in front of the king. And since spells are at least as deadly as weapons he wouldn't want a caster in front of him either. But he wouldn't want his own wizards to not be able to cast spells any more than he would want his own guards to not have weapons. So I agree the antimagic shell would not usually be a good idea. So I would actually think a common magic item in courts might be some device a spell caster would be forced to wear that prevents casting.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
During one run of First Steps, we had a Kitsune player, who was a GM and had played it before. I simply added an AMF to the meeting room with Ambrose Valsine so the Kistune would have to assume his true form.
Side note: you cannot and should not do that. That is altering a scenario beyond what is written, and has the potential to invalidate several character concepts. If I were playing my kitsune, and a GM told me that, I would leave the table and be sending an email to the campaign leadership.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell is *not* in the scenario description. If my concept is that my kitsune never reveals his true self except to his closest friends, and you decide to add a spell to force me to break character, just for the sake of showing "look its a kitsune!", then you are not acting in good faith as a PFS GM. Run As Written. You do not add extra spells, extra monsters, extra hit points.
While I don't really participate in PFS, and am not familiar with the rules, I'm not sure I see a problem with what has so far been described. If the GM was doing it for the sole purpose of outing the Kitsune for no other reason than he could, then perhaps there would be some problem. But when the player went out of their way to notify the GM that they would be actively attempting to break the scenario, then in what light does the player have the right to ruin the experience for everyone else, or put differently, why does that one player have precedence over a GM call to keep things on course?
Peacebonding for wizards: bind their hands, and gag them. If you're truly worried about someone casting spells at you, take the precautions. If that wizard still walks in with a still/silent spell prepared, it's no different than a standard assassin coming in anyway. Peacebonding for monks... yeah I have nothing, but I guess that's where the whole MUST BE LAWFUL bit is supposed to come into play with monks.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it interesting that the guy who is championing less GM variability is also championing an arbitrary, non-written spell use in a scenario for the sole purpose of f'ing with a player.
Not that I can't empathize with the description of the players actions... Just wow. Guess his arbitrary judgment us ok, but anyone else's isn't?
|
|
In response to the Kitsune problem: In a PFS situation, I think the correct order of business to deal with this is to Talk to the player first, if he continues, give him a warning and then if the problem continues, kick him from the table, and that's from the GM101 free book.
Reading into this situation a little more, it sounds like he was either a first time player or someone who has DM stars as he was, in essence, replaying the scenario due to having prior knowledge of the scenario. If it continues to be a problem, I'd just have the VO's take over with the problem and not take it out on them in game. If you start using game mechanics to get back at a player, you're just throwing fuel on the fire.
In an attempt to get us back on track with where this forum was going: I like the idea of peacebonding, but FlySkyHigh is right. In my mind, just having a piece of string tied around two fingers isn't going to do anything to restrict the mage, unless he had still/silent spells prepared, but at least it gives the citizens peace of mind that even the spellcasters are peacebonded in some way.
In a PFS scenario, you're not going to see very many warning signs of casting in public is causing a ruckus unless you are doing something crazy. In a home game setting, that's a different story. I would use some of the things that have been discussed in this forum to emphasize "don't use magic" to your players.
|
So what would happen if this happens:
- Party attempts to fight guards and blasts them with fireballs. They want to ensure that they have the area clear for investigation.
- Gm sees this as something that would ensure more guards to the scene, as if this continues, it would put the Pathfinder Society in bad terms with the town, seeing that their employees are killing people left and right.
- PLAYERS ask if that is actually in the scenario text (which is not), and questions the GM if she is adding stuff that is not there.
- GM sees that as a violation of "Don't be a Jerk" rule and after a warning of their situation, decides to leave the table.
- PLAYERS see this as a violation of the GM code of not adding creatures/stuff to the scenario.
Who would be at fault?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
So what would happen if this happens:
- Party attempts to fight guards and blasts them with fireballs. They want to ensure that they have the area clear for investigation.
- Gm sees this as something that would ensure more guards to the scene, as if this continues, it would put the Pathfinder Society in bad terms with the town, seeing that their employees are killing people left and right.
- PLAYERS ask if that is actually in the scenario text (which is not), and questions the GM if she is adding stuff that is not there.
- GM sees that as a violation of "Don't be a Jerk" rule and after a warning of their situation, decides to leave the table.
- PLAYERS see this as a violation of the GM code of not adding creatures/stuff to the scenario.Who would be at fault?
How is this related to the topic? The original question is how NPCs react to unknown magic being cast in social situations, not how to handle PCs indiscriminately killing everyone who poses an inconvenience.
|
|
Ok. Then how would a GM react to a situation that would make them feel that NPCs would see as a hostile/horrendous act. Seeing that this is specifically on the PFS forums, it would be a factor in to the player-base situation. Are GMs going to let PCs walk around in a heavily populated area in Monstrous Form, Enlarged Forms, or with hands glowing with necrotic powers while talking to a footguard? A PFS GM can not change anything that would be not of the scenario, even if the guard is talking to some random ogre-like creature. The GMs feel that the npc should have every mental flag raised thats omething is wrong or something bad is about to happen, but what CAN the GM do?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what would happen if this happens:
- Party attempts to fight guards and blasts them with fireballs. They want to ensure that they have the area clear for investigation.
- Gm sees this as something that would ensure more guards to the scene, as if this continues, it would put the Pathfinder Society in bad terms with the town, seeing that their employees are killing people left and right.
- PLAYERS ask if that is actually in the scenario text (which is not), and questions the GM if she is adding stuff that is not there.
- GM sees that as a violation of "Don't be a Jerk" rule and after a warning of their situation, decides to leave the table.
- PLAYERS see this as a violation of the GM code of not adding creatures/stuff to the scenario.Who would be at fault?
The players. I don't care what is in tge scenario, you can't get away with wanton slaughter. Period.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. Then how would a GM react to a situation that would make them feel that NPCs would see as a hostile/horrendous act. Seeing that this is specifically on the PFS forums, it would be a factor in to the player-base situation. Are GMs going to let PCs walk around in a heavily populated area in Monstrous Form, Enlarged Forms, or with hands glowing with necrotic powers while talking to a footguard? A PFS GM can not change anything that would be not of the scenario, even if the guard is talking to some random ogre-like creature. The GMs feel that the npc should have every mental flag raised thats omething is wrong or something bad is about to happen, but what CAN the GM do?
The GM is very much within their purview to apply situational modifiers based on player choices. If this means GM fiat that the town guards arrive en mass and arrest the PCs for murder, then that's fine.
The run as written rule assumes the players aren't being Asshats. Not to stop the GM from imposing consequences for ridiculous choices.
|
|
I find it interesting that the guy who is championing less GM variability is also championing an arbitrary, non-written spell use in a scenario for the sole purpose of f'ing with a player.
Not that I can't empathize with the description of the players actions... Just wow. Guess his arbitrary judgment us ok, but anyone else's isn't?
Once again, your MO is to try and twist and turn and recast something in an extreme fashion. The action was necessary to keep the player from trying to make a mockery of the encounter. In addition, IIRC, several of the players had not played the scenario before, and it may have been first PFS mission for at least one person. In my judgment as a GM, it was more important to the health of PFS to show the head of the Society as not being fooled by a level 1 character. When said player explicitly states their actions are in bad faith I have every right to counter act that action within the rules, and that's exactly what I did.
The GM-as-written rules is aimed first and foremost at mission difficulty. Portraying the head of PFS as being highly protected in a non-"encounter" is not a violation of the GMaW rule as much as you or others want to pretend it is.
And that's right, the less GM discretion burden you put on people, the easier it is for them to GM and the less stress they experience. Absolutely nowhere have I said that GMs can't make discretionary rulings when necessary. The more you keep insisting as such, the less credibility you have in this discussion.
You said so above. I asked you directly if you wanted to dictate how I as a GM can adjudicate spellcasting in social situations. You said yes. How is that misrepresenting your position?
|
|
How society generally reacts to spell casting should be as mutable as how society reacts to dwarves, elves, or half-orcs.
I don't disagree. But every situation or circumstance may modify how an NPC might react to anything. And it is up to the GM to adjudicate this based on all aspects of the circumstances.
A GM has a right to add personality to NPCs. Generally I'd say direct hostility without to the point of violence is bad without given cause by the PCs. But some NPCs will hate dwarves or clerics, or attack dogs on sight despite otherwise being generally friendly.
Each circumstance is different. And should be handled as such.
|
Hmmm... I may indeed have missed something in the discussion, then. I was responding to the idea that, magic being common in Golarion, the average NPC will not mind if someone starts casting spells around them, or even at them, because the average NPC will either knowor assume that the magic being cast is benign. I find that idea preposterous enough to keep arguing agInst it, even if no one is arguing for it any longer. :)
|
|
I find it interesting that the guy who is championing less GM variability is also championing an arbitrary, non-written spell use in a scenario for the sole purpose of f'ing with a player.
Not that I can't empathize with the description of the players actions... Just wow. Guess his arbitrary judgment us ok, but anyone else's isn't?
Yet another argument for less GM variability.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stumbled across the following that reminded me of this thread and I wanted to share:
"Last I heard, the law prohibited magical attack against a citizen of Korvosa," he said.
"Magical detention is permitted if that citizen is engaged in a crime" the wizard intoned "or otherwise endangering the populace."
Pathfinder Tales, Winter Witch page 83
Not a rule book - but at least a Paizo publication. Korvosa has at least two wizard academies - so magic is there more common as elsewhere. The accused is a wizard of the watch. So even they can't cast whenever they like.
He doesn't get into trouble as he is backed up by his non-magical comrades and they claim he didn't use a spell against the hero but rather against his horse.
But it is an interesting exchange about the allowed use of magic as described in a city with lots if magic.
A few pages earlier there is a magic abduction and a (failed) magic assassination attempt. So magic is cast a lot - but better keep it private.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how "law prohibits magical attack" translates to "even they can't cast whenever they like". Sounds to me more like it's only an issue if you use magic to actually attack someone, which in turn implies that non-attack use of magic is pretty normal. That is, if people tended to think "magic=dangerous" then the law would likely be more prohibitive of magic in general rather than only taking issue with an actual attack against a person.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The point isn't what is and isn't allowed. Its what the reaction would be if they don't know what's being cast.
Agreed. And it's my contention that the more negative the typical reaction, the less sense it makes that there would be laws specifically against "magical attacks against citizens" instead of something more general, like "spellcasting in public" or "casting without official authorization". The fact that there's no implication whatsoever that anyone gives a flying flip that magic was used, but rather that they're only concerned with it having turned out to be an attack, tells us a lot about the area's typical reactions to spellcasting in general.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, there's no specific law against me holding my hands up and going "ARRRRRRRGH!!!!" at people but i think that that would generate a pretty strong reaction of either fear or solid object to the face.
Either you're trying to suggest that spellcasting in general is inherently equivalent to that, and therefore people will always have that kind of reaction unless you preemptively give them very specific and compelling cause to trust that it's all okay; or you're of the opinion that the possibility of doing X in a hostile fashion is somehow relevant to determining the normal, default social reaction to X.
Which are you trying to say?
|
|
.
Which are you trying to say?
1) The lack of a law does not indicate the level of social impropriety
2) Magic is probably going to be seen like the GRARRGH! example in less cosmopolitan areas unless magic has some purpose being in that area. Guy wearing a mask holding a scalpel on 5th and Main? Psyco. Guy wearing a mask and holding a scalpel in the ER? Well respected physician.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
2) Magic is probably going to be seen like the GRARRGH! example in less cosmopolitan areas unless magic has some purpose being in that area. Guy wearing a mask holding a scalpel on 5th and Main? Psyco. Guy wearing a mask and holding a scalpel in the ER? Well respected physician.
But with the utility of the cantrips, especially prestidigitation, magic has a purpose everywhere. If I'm walking down 5th and Main, and a passing cart splashes mud on my clothes, I might want to cast a prestidigitation right there to take care of it. Will people look at me like I'm holding a scalpel out in front of me while I walk?
|
|
But with the utility of the cantrips, especially prestidigitation, magic has a purpose everywhere. If I'm walking down 5th and Main, and a passing cart splashes mud on my clothes, I might want to cast a prestidigitation right there to take care of it. Will people look at me like I'm holding a scalpel out in front of me while I walk?
Probably for a second or two until they see the mud splatter coming off. . I mean pocket knives are everywhere. If i take one out of my pocket with no warning its going to get some looks... until they see me pick up a pencil to sharpen or an apple to peel.
|
|
But with the utility of the cantrips, especially prestidigitation, magic has a purpose everywhere. If I'm walking down 5th and Main, and a passing cart splashes mud on my clothes, I might want to cast a prestidigitation right there to take care of it. Will people look at me like I'm holding a scalpel out in front of me while I walk?
2) Magic is probably going to be seen like the GRARRGH! example in less cosmopolitan areas unless magic has some purpose being in that area. Guy wearing a mask holding a scalpel on 5th and Main? Psyco. Guy wearing a mask and holding a scalpel in the ER? Well respected physician.
Given the relative rarity and probable reputation of freelance adventurers, and even known Pathfinders in some regions, how are the bystanders to know if you plan to clean your clothes or get revenge on the careless driver? The people likening spells to mundane objects, even ones like knives that can be used as weapons, are forgetting one very important, glaring thing. Knives, hammers, crowbars, cellphones, and the like can all be identified on sight without much in the way of training. Sure, you might not know the difference between a Gerber or a Winchester pocket knife, but you can look and easily see that it's a pocket knife. An NPC, especially a commoner, is not likely to have ranks in Spellcraft. Without at least one rank in Spellcraft, you can't tell the difference between an offensive or utility spell. You can't tell the difference between a divine spell and an arcane spell. Arguably, you can't tell the difference between a real spell, and someone pretending to cast one.
If all you know is "magic" then you don't know enough to determine if it's hostile or benign. Why do so many feel that the NPC more likely to assume it's benign, all else being equal?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
how are the bystanders to know if you plan to clean your clothes or get revenge on the careless driver?
Probably by seeing where you're looking, whether you seem to be focused on the stain or the driver, how angry you seem, etc. You know, all the things people normally use to ascertain people's intents within seconds, every day of their lives.
If all you know is "magic" then you don't know enough to determine if it's hostile or benign.
You know exactly as much as you did right before he started casting. Any random observer already had an idea of whether they thought the person was going to deal with the stain or direct some ire at the driver. The implication that all of that social data vanishes from the minds of all observers the moment spellcasting is introduced is one of the most asinine sentiments in this entire thread.
Why do so many feel that the NPC more likely to assume it's benign, all else being equal?
They don't.
They think the NPC is more likely to assume it's of the same level of hostility or non-hostility that the NPC already had you pegged for before you started casting.|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To expand on this "social data" point, it's been my experience at pretty much every PFS table I've run or played at, that NPCs can instantly ascertain whether the PCs intend to talk or fight. There's never even a Sense Motive check unless the scenario calls for it. We visit important people, we talk to shopkeepers, we canvas witnesses of important events, we walk down the streets of metropolises while passing scores of unmentioned NPCs on the sidewalk. They all seem to correctly assume we mean them no harm. Others, who have some reason for the PCs to come after them, always seem to know said PCs' general intent of conflict.
Similarly, whenever the GM presents an NPC, it's made pretty obvious whether it will be possible to talk to them or if they look like they mean you harm. Again, there's never even a check to tell the NPCs' motives or intentions unless deliberate misdirection is involved.
What some of us in this thread are saying is simply "Why should all of that suddenly stop being the case as soon as spellcasting is involved?"
And so far, the reply seems to consistently be an accusation of trying to assert an entirely different position, that I don't think I've seen anyone actually espouse.
|
|
The implication that all of that social data vanishes from the minds of all observers the moment spellcasting is introduced is one of the most asinine sentiments in this entire thread.A-frickin-men.
I'm actually quite curious why people have taken this attitude. Is it because every time players use magic they are generally intending harm?
you know, I haven't actually seen anyone argue this. You are inferring that because I want the freedom to make an informed choice on how my NPC reacts, that I am immediately going for the worst case scenario every time.
That couldn't be further from the truth, and I think my posting in this thread has been completely consistent on how I think things should be handled.
The only thing that has brought this into the argument is the few alarmists who seem to think that because one or two GM's did this to them, that it is suddenly how all GM's want to do it.
I don't think the two sides in this argument are very far apart. Not at all.
What I think is happening, is that one person got their nether clothing in a bunch over an alleged "ridiculous ruling" by a GM, and another person jumped on the bandwagon despite there being no proof this happens even semi-frequently.
While those of us who like to make fair rulings based on the circumstances at hand don't want to be handcuffed to some arbitrary ruling on how every NPC should act all the time.
|
|
To expand on this "social data" point, it's been my experience at pretty much every PFS table I've run or played at, that NPCs can instantly ascertain whether the PCs intend to talk or fight. There's never even a Sense Motive check unless the scenario calls for it. We visit important people, we talk to shopkeepers, we canvas witnesses of important events, we walk down the streets of metropolises while passing scores of unmentioned NPCs on the sidewalk. They all seem to correctly assume we mean them no harm. Others, who have some reason for the PCs to come after them, always seem to know said PCs' general intent of conflict.
Similarly, whenever the GM presents an NPC, it's made pretty obvious whether it will be possible to talk to them or if they look like they mean you harm. Again, there's never even a check to tell the NPCs' motives or intentions unless deliberate misdirection is involved.
What some of us in this thread are saying is simply "Why should all of that suddenly stop being the case as soon as spellcasting is involved?"
And so far, the reply seems to consistently be an accusation of trying to assert an entirely different position, that I don't think I've seen anyone actually espouse.
Jiggy, you've played at many of my tables, and I know what you are saying above is not true for "all" your PFS experiences.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
you know, I haven't actually seen anyone argue this. You are inferring that because I want the freedom to make an informed choice on how my NPC reacts, that I am immediately going for the worst case scenario every time.The implication that all of that social data vanishes from the minds of all observers the moment spellcasting is introduced is one of the most asinine sentiments in this entire thread.A-frickin-men.
I'm actually quite curious why people have taken this attitude. Is it because every time players use magic they are generally intending harm?
Actually, it was a direct response to Mystic Lemur's most recent post. He pretty explicitly stated that someone who doesn't know what spell you're casting wouldn't have any idea whether you were going to commit a hostile or benign act.
I don't think the two sides in this argument are very far apart. Not at all.
If the two sides are represented by me and you, then I'd agree. But then there's a few GMs in this thread who have some, uh, "interesting" ideas of what it means to see someone cast a spell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Circumstances, circumstances, circumstances
That is what it boils down to.
This leaves a conundrum.
You either want to avoid any table variance. In this case circumstances have to be codified.
Or you assume the GM to act fairly according to the circumstances and the lore of Golarion.
The first option is utopia as no guide/ruling can include every single circumstance. There always has to be a GM as final arbiter.
The second option is utopia as no GM ever will know exactly what developers think about the land in a given situation. Likely developers will disagree themselves so a 100% fair and consistent ruling will never happen.
Choose the utopia you prefer but don't expect you can convince someone striving for the other utopia to be swayed with logical arguments.
There are flaws in both positions.
|
|
About Korsova:
I'm not talking about prestidigitation or fireball when I added this to the discussion. These seem clear.
What about:
Detect Magic
Detect Evil
Disguise Self
Fascination
Charm person
Hold person
And an interesting pair
Bless
Bane
Does attack someone include attacking his privacy? Does misleading someone fall into this?
And there is still the slope from not allowed to socially not acceptable to most people don't mind to everyone is fine with it.
Add in social status - a noble/rich man/guard gets away with a lot more
Actually Pathfinders are despised in several areas of Golarion. Read up Prince of Wolves where Count Jeggare is reminded that 4 Pathfinders recently have been hanged in Ustalav for doing likely the same as we are asked to do in every other scenario.
We have to take it for granted as players that we are save following a scenario and don't get arrested at the end - or worse. But it is a fallacy from that to follow what we do always is okay according to Golarion lore.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Circumstances, circumstances, circumstances
That is what it boils down to.
You know, after a dozen pages I think that might actually be how the OP would like it.
I.e., "How about if NPCs' reactions to spellcasting were based on the circumstances, instead of defaulting to thinking I'm probably attacking them?"
With some people in this thread saying that NPCs lose their ability to tell whether you seem hostile or not as soon as you cast a spell, and/or that NPCs' perception of the likelihood of a spell being hostile or benign exactly matches the percentage of spells in existence that are hostile or benign; I bet if we could get those GMs to rule based on actual circumstances instead, the OP (and others of like minds) would be pretty satisfied.