|
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?Because of the situation in which it is cast. It's a pretty universal rule in all societies that it's illegal to attack people without justification. People rely on that ethos. It allows them to walk the streets of Golarion without fear that everyone with a sword, rod, bow, or any other means of killing isn't going to do that randomly.
A person's hands can kill another person. Every time someone makes a fist on the street, do you cower in fear? Every time someone raises their hand at a party, do you prepare to throw down? No. Magic use doesn't change anything.
The issue here is one of magnitude. Yes, I can kill you with my fist, but it isn't that easy. It is much easier to kill you with a gun. So does your reaction change if that person at a party raises a gun rather than a fist? Magic has the benefit of also being able to do great good, but the fact it can do great harm tends to weigh more on human psyche.
For example, let's say some people had a box with six buttons that did the following:
Button 1 - Healed all injuries within 100 ft.
Button 2 - Cured all diseases within 100 ft.
Button 3 - Removed all hunger within 100 ft.
Button 4 - Removed all thirst within 100 ft.
Button 5 - Removed all fatigue within 100 ft.
Button 6 - Killed everyone within 100 ft.
While the average citizen would be grateful for people with this box who push buttons 1-5, they will always be afraid when they see someone they don't know they can trust fiddling with one of those boxes because they might push button 6. How that fear manifests will vary with the individual.
|
|
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?"
Actually I would say that is how most GMs I have seen handle it. I certainly do so.
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.
This is a side effect of using rules and nothing else.
RAW - if an NPC has no spellcraft (most) and sense motive taking too long (CRB p104: Action: Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you) you are pretty out of luck as GM if you follow the rules only and always want to do the same to avoid table variation.
This leaves only two options - always attack or never attack.
Or build up a convoluted spreadsheet with situations that specify when to do the first and when to do the second.
I'm not saying this makes sense. But this is following it to conclusion.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.This is a side effect of using rules and nothing else.
No, it's really not. At the very least, the people who have put forth such absurd ideas have not been saying "because rules"; quite the opposite, in fact. When certain GMs in this thread are saying "X would be the case because it makes sense to me as a GM", I'm not sure how you interpret that to mean it's the result of relying too strictly on rules.
Sounds more like you're afraid of getting lumped in with those GMs unless you can draw a very tangible line between them and you. (Can't really blame you; the worst type of misconduct is that which justifies itself with a twisted version of what should have been good judgment.)
-------------------------------------------------------------
There appear to be two camps in this thread:
1) "It'd be cool to know how NPCs view spellcasting in general, and use that baseline to apply circumstances and determine individual reactions by GM discretion. That baseline is probably pretty neutral, and circumstances are going to be key."
2) "Most spellcasting is hostile, and NPCs stop being able to tell if you want them dead or not once you start casting, so NPCs will usually react as such."
I think those are the only two real positions in this thread. Unfortunately, it seems that half the people in #1 (we'll call them 1A) mistakenly think that the other half of #1 (1B) is trying to say either "We need to codify NPC reactions to spellcasting and remove all circumstance and GM judgment" or "NPCs will always react to spellcasting as though it's benign". But they're not.
Additionally, the same half of #1 that thinks these sentiments exist (1A) also seems to think that #2 either doesn't exist or is the product of one or more of the non-existent sentiments they think is being expressed by 1B.
Most of this thread seems to be an exercise in miscommunication, overreaction, and careless mislabeling.
|
I'm going back to the first page, because apparently I've missed something in the days since I started following this discussion.
As for social settings, presumably people are aware of how their own world works, just as we know how ours works. In the technology-soaked world I live in, if I'm at a charity gala and see someone speaking into their phone in a language I don't understand or typing something I can't see into a mobile device, I generally don't worry that they're telling their terrorist accomplices "the chicken is in the pot" or transmitting coordinates for an air strike. Likewise, when people who live in the magical world of Golarion see someone casting a spell that they don't recognize, they probably aren't expecting any explosions.
Of course, someone trained in Spellcraft who identifies a hostile spell would react just like someone who understood the phone command—which would probably start with telling other people who were otherwise going about their business without a care in the world.
At least, that's my take on it.
Talking on the phone in public is normal. Typing on the phone in public is normal. Sure, I'm entitled to a sense motive check (at DC 20) to try to get a "hunch" about the situation. Let's see... I'm a low level commoner or expert who hopefully hasn't dumped Wisdom, so I'm rolling at maybe a +6. That gives me a roughly 35% chance to get any kind of read on them at all, even if he looks to be typing very angrily.
I reject your assumption than magic is common enough in Golarion that someone casting a spell in the street has risen to the same level of normalcy as that of someone in real life talking on the cell phone. I reject it flat out. The rules do not lend themselves in any way to that assumption, or else the Spellcraft DCs would not be so high, Spellcraft would not be a trained only skill, or Commoners would have it on their class skill list. People fear what they don't understand, and people do not, mechanically, understand magic. They are not able to tell the difference between a calmly cast detect magic and a calmly cast fireball until it's too late.
If answering a phone call at a big, fancy dinner is considered rude (it is still considered rude, isn't it?), then how much more so would it be to start casting unknown spells around people who have no way to identify said spellcasting as non-hostile? If you have money and power you protect yourself from mundane weapons by hiring your own bodyguards and/or by preventing people from bringing their weapons near you. If you want to protect yourself from magic, would it not make sense to hire your own magic "bodyguards" and to prevent/restrict spellcasting around you? Would it not make sense to be suspicious of people casting magic you didn't recognize?
I'm not talking about going from friendly conversation, to baring steel. I don't think anyone here is. I'm talking about going from friendly conversation to cautious, from indifference to suspicious, and perhaps even from unfriendly to hostile. If I already don't trust you, spellcasting might be just the thing to make me decide I've had enough. Going back to my "I see someone draw a gun" post, I'm not going to wait to see the results of unannounced spellcasting before I start taking action to protect myself from the unknown. Not all spellcasting is equivalent to drawing a weapon, but if I have no reliable way to tell the difference, why would I just assume the best? And unlike a mundane weapon being drawn, the spellcaster is not (by RAW, at least) allowed to make a Bluff or Sleight of Hand check to mask the spellcasting. It's blatantly obvious that a spell is being cast, like a loud, gaudy ringtone going off in the middle of a solemn church service.
So no, not every NPC will react the same, either by getting angry or by not raising an eyebrow. It's up to the situation and the GMs discretion. And if, in the GMs discretion, spellcasting triggers a fight, then hopefully you will be more cautious in the future.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The rules do not lend themselves in any way to that assumption, or else the Spellcraft DCs would not be so high, Spellcraft would not be a trained only skill, or Commoners would have it on their class skill list.
Spellcasting is something that most anyone has a chance of intuitively recognizing if not identifying, as you're right--it is a fairly common feature of the world.
As to some other points:
If answering a phone call at a big, fancy dinner is considered rude (it is still considered rude, isn't it?), then how much more so would it be to start casting unknown spells around people who have no way to identify said spellcasting as non-hostile?
Can you show me where anyone suggested otherwise? No one (that I'm aware of) is trying to suggest that NPCs will always regard spellcasting as acceptable in every situation, and I don't *think* anyone has used "in the middle of a big, fancy dinner" as a sample situation where they think NPCs should be cool with it. So you really have no point to make with that example, unless you're trying to extrapolate from it that spellcasting would be handled in most situations the same as it would be at such a dinner; but that would (A) be silly, and (B) contradict your later assertion that GMs should be able to respond to the situation at hand.
I'm not talking about going from friendly conversation, to baring steel. I don't think anyone here is.
Well, BigNorseWolf has likened spellcasting in general to raising your fists and yelling "RRAAAARRRGGHH!!!". A couple of people (I think LazarX was one of them, but I'm not sure) have claimed that since 95% of the spells in existence are harmful, then surely people who don't identify your spell will be about 95% sure that you intend harm.
So yes, some folks are talking like that. See my last post, where I pretty much predicted this. ("Think that #2 doesn't exist".)
If I already don't trust you, spellcasting might be just the thing to make me decide I've had enough.
I'm not aware of anyone having suggested differently, so once again there's no point in this statement.
why would I just assume the best?
No one's asking you to. No one. The request is that NPCs would continue to assume what they were already assuming.
So no, not every NPC will react the same, either by getting angry or by not raising an eyebrow.
No one's suggesting they should.
It's up to the situation and the GMs discretion.
The people you think you're arguing against would love it to be based on the situation just as you suggest, rather than being inherently threatening the way some GMs have suggested (the ones you seem to have missed).
Aside from the singular point about how common magic is, you are arguing against your own side because you either haven't seen or won't acknowledge the other side, so you think those arguing against it must be arguing against you instead, and you're filling their mouths with things that make more sense as arguments against you than the things they're actually saying.
|
|
Paizo already produces 3 product lines that should help players and GMs to immerse themselves into the world of Golarion and give them an idea what is common or not
Pathfinder Companion - dealing with all the races and a few areas in Golarion like Cheliax
Pathfinder Campaign Setting - going into more detail for many areas
Pathfinder Tales - stories in the Golarion setting which also try to inform about a few aspects (a religion, an area, a class, a region)
None of them delivers a numerical baseline - but in combination they are in my view superior - if you have access and read them and you combine it with an attitude not to screw over players deliberately what I strive to do.
|
|
The rules do not lend themselves in any way to that assumption, or else the Spellcraft DCs would not be so high, Spellcraft would not be a trained only skill, or Commoners would have it on their class skill list.Spellcasting is something that most anyone has a chance of intuitively recognizing if not identifying, as you're right--it is a fairly common feature of the world.
I don't disagree that anyone can recognize spellcasting. I think I likened it to a loud ringtone in a quiet setting.
However, if John says that spellcasting is common enough on Golarion that even commoners can tell the difference between hostile and benign spells, then there needs to be something he can point to that supersedes the Core Rulebook. Perhaps that blog he mentioned...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't disagree that anyone can recognize spellcasting. I think I likened it to a loud ringtone in a quiet setting.The rules do not lend themselves in any way to that assumption, or else the Spellcraft DCs would not be so high, Spellcraft would not be a trained only skill, or Commoners would have it on their class skill list.Spellcasting is something that most anyone has a chance of intuitively recognizing if not identifying, as you're right--it is a fairly common feature of the world.
See my (rather lengthy, sorry) edit to that post, above.
However, if John says that spellcasting is common enough on Golarion that even commoners can tell the difference between hostile and benign spells, then there needs to be something he can point to that supersedes the Core Rulebook. Perhaps that blog he mentioned...
No one is talking about being able to tell the difference between spell A and spell B, knowing whether or not it's hostile based on having identified the spell.
We are talking about having an idea of intent based on things other than identifying the spell. Sometimes, I hear people's dialogues through a wall or from a distance, muffled to the point I can't make out the words. Funnily enough, even without knowing what they're saying I can tell the difference between casual conversation, lovers' giggles and angry shouting. All anyone is asking is that spellcasting not remove that ability from otherwise fully functional people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A gun has one purpose and one purpose only, to shoot someone. If I'm at a fund raiser for a software company, there's no reason someone would be carrying a gun, sword, a hunting knife, or any other weapon. Those are weapons and their purpose is to function as a weapon. And if someone did pull one out, it goes down exactly as Jiggy suggests. You instantly determine if the person is intending to shoot someone or just showing off the weapon.The issue here is one of magnitude. Yes, I can kill you with my fist, but it isn't that easy. It is much easier to kill you with a gun. So does your reaction change if that person at a party raises a gun rather than a fist?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?Because of the situation in which it is cast. It's a pretty universal rule in all societies that it's illegal to attack people without justification. People rely on that ethos. It allows them to walk the streets of Golarion without fear that everyone with a sword, rod, bow, or any other means of killing isn't going to do that randomly.
A person's hands can kill another person. Every time someone makes a fist on the street, do you cower in fear? Every time someone raises their hand at a party, do you prepare to throw down? No. Magic use doesn't change anything.
You were the one who brought up an example of someone raising their fist against you as a possible deadly weapon. All I did was give an example of something that simply raised the magnitude of that exact same threat. If you are arguing that the change in that magnitude changes your reaction then you just proved my point.
A car can kill me instantly if the driver plows onto the sidewalk and it would take a lot fewer than six seconds to do so. Do I walk in fear every time a car goes by? No. Am I constantly looking over my should for fear of being run over? No. Because I expect everyone who has a car to drive on the road, whether they have license to drive or not. The same is true when I've been to Europe, the Domincan Republic, India, Argentina, and anywhere else in the world that has cars.
And why, exactly, do you not fear cars that are proven to be deadly? Because there are laws, uniform guidelines (etiquette as it were) and enforcement that keeps this threat to a minimum. And why do these laws exists? Because once upon a time, people were afraid of being run over by cars. So either you have a society in which magic is heavily regulated, in which case I agree most people would not be concerned with public spell casting, or you have a society in which magic is not regulated, in which case everyone would be concerned about public spell casting.
|
|
I just had an interesting thought. If there were one spell that people saw cast commonly in public it would be Prestidigitation because of its many mundane uses. In fact, I would think this would be so common in a society that freely allowed the casting of spells publically that even an untrained commoner would recognize it being cast. So if this were the case, then, by the rules, identifying Prestidigitation would be a DC 10 or less. But, by the rules, we know the DC is 15. So does this mean that the rules are telling us that casting magic publically is not common?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So either you have a society in which magic is heavily regulated, in which case I agree most people would not be concerned with public spell casting
Earlier in the thread, it was cited that Absalom(?) has lists of illegal spells (such as invisibility), that legal systems are in place for determining revisions to those lists (including annual public announcements of such updates), and that there are established laws for determining that a spell not banned is "functionally identical" to an illegal one and therefore illegal by extension.
So I guess you agree that most people would not be concerned with public spellcasting. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just had an interesting thought. If there were one spell that people saw cast commonly in public it would be Prestidigitation because of its many mundane uses. In fact, I would think this would be so common in a society that freely allowed the casting of spells publically that even an untrained commoner would recognize it being cast. So if this were the case, then, by the rules, identifying Prestidigitation would be a DC 10 or less. But, by the rules, we know the DC is 15. So does this mean that the rules are telling us that casting magic publically is not common?
So you make up your own "if-then", based purely on your own opinion, and then use it as proof in your argument? You seriously just tried that?
|
|
So either you have a society in which magic is heavily regulated, in which case I agree most people would not be concerned with public spell castingEarlier in the thread, it was cited that Absalom(?) has lists of illegal spells (such as invisibility), that legal systems are in place for determining revisions to those lists (including annual public announcements of such updates), and that there are established laws for determining that a spell not banned is "functionally identical" to an illegal one and therefore illegal by extension.
So I guess you agree that most people would not be concerned with public spellcasting. :)
In Absalom? Probably not. But I don't recall this discussion being limited to only Absalom. Many adventures take place in frontier areas without the regulation that occurs in the Fantasy equivalent of New York City.
|
|
I just had an interesting thought. If there were one spell that people saw cast commonly in public it would be Prestidigitation because of its many mundane uses. In fact, I would think this would be so common in a society that freely allowed the casting of spells publically that even an untrained commoner would recognize it being cast. So if this were the case, then, by the rules, identifying Prestidigitation would be a DC 10 or less. But, by the rules, we know the DC is 15. So does this mean that the rules are telling us that casting magic publically is not common?So you make up your own "if-then", based purely on your own opinion, and then use it as proof in your argument? You seriously just tried that?
Um..no..I did not just try that, because if you will actually read the entire comment you will not see anywhere in there where I say this is proof of my arguments. It was clearly stated as both a thought and an opinion which then ended in a question that was meant for the reader to answer. It was simply a thought exercise that I thought was germane to the discussion.
|
|
Are most people in a setting concerned about spell casting?
From the way Golarion is described in most books - yes.
From a point if keeping PFS functional - no.
Just read a few Radivan books and you will learn that tie flings are nearly universal despised in Golarion and regarded as untrustworthy and (likely) evil. Call it prejudice or even racist - but that is how the world tends to be described.
As PFS GM I ignore this. The alternative would be to tell the Tiefling player - and in this scenario your diplomacy modifier is -x (fill in a value you like).
Similar with spell casting. I allow a lot more spell casting as I feel is setting appropriate. I do this as I feel otherwise I would nerf certain functions of character builds.
Look at the necromancer threads and casting spells with evil descriptor. I feel a lot of the discussion is the conflict between being functional and casting spells that are inappropriate in certain situations. A paladin in the group seems enough.
This is why I have problems with a baseline for always allowed spellcasting.
Place this baseline according to Golarion lore and I expect a lot of players will complain because they feel nerfed.
Place it according to the needs of PFS and you will get players using it to cast knowingly inappropriate spells - for no other reason as that it is allowed like cheese builds/moves are allowed.
As GM I try to judge this to get the best compromise between needs of the player and verisimilitude of the setting. If in doubt I will side with the player.
|
|
Another bit:
Why are cantrips and orisons not used more?
Golarion predates the Pathfinder rulebook. I think it was a great step in the rules to make cantrips and orisons to unlimited use from a point of playability when 3.5 changed to Pathfinder.
The rule change makes unlimited spells possible but shouldn't change the baseline of spell casting overnight in an existing setting.
So baselines for settings prior to the Pathfinder rules might more reflect magic availability according to 3.5 rules or the rules in existence at the time a world was created.
Will this change over time?
Probably. But maybe older players / GMs still have more a view about how magic did work in the past while players starting with always available magic might think differently.
The baseline certainly has been raised in the 30 years I play.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Um..no..I did not just try that, because if you will actually read the entire comment you will not see anywhere in there where I say this is proof of my arguments. It was clearly stated as both a thought and an opinion which then ended in a question that was meant for the reader to answer. It was simply a thought exercise that I thought was germane to the discussion.I just had an interesting thought. If there were one spell that people saw cast commonly in public it would be Prestidigitation because of its many mundane uses. In fact, I would think this would be so common in a society that freely allowed the casting of spells publically that even an untrained commoner would recognize it being cast. So if this were the case, then, by the rules, identifying Prestidigitation would be a DC 10 or less. But, by the rules, we know the DC is 15. So does this mean that the rules are telling us that casting magic publically is not common?So you make up your own "if-then", based purely on your own opinion, and then use it as proof in your argument? You seriously just tried that?
Failing to say "This is proof of my argument" does not change the fact that you presented it as a premise from which you drew a conclusion. You made an argument ("X and Y, therefore Z") for which you used your idea as a premise (aka "proof"):
Premise 1: If public spellcasting was common, then prestidigitation's Spellcraft DC to identify would be 10.
Premise 2: Its DC is 15, not 10.
Conclusion: Public spellcasting is not common.
That's what you did. Yes, you technically phrased your conclusion in a way that included a question mark; I did the same with the post you're replying to. We both know full well that neither was really a question.
Anyway, your argument is sound (or is it "valid"?) in that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. However, Premise #1 is something that you just made up to support your conclusion, and has no basis upon which to stand.
As an aside, please don't accuse me of not reading just because I understand when something with a question mark is still a statement/claim . Let's try to keep this to a real, honest discussion about the game we all love, alright?
|
|
You were the one who brought up an example of someone raising their fist against you as a possible deadly weapon. All I did was give an example of something that simply raised the magnitude of that exact same threat.No, that's not what you did. You changed the nature of the item from something that can do lots of benign things, like a hand, to an item that is designed to do only one thing.
I am trying hard not to be pedantic, but it seems you want to be so: You used the words "fist" and "raised hand" which both imply aggressive meaning. That is not the same thing as simply referring to it as a "hand."
Comparing spell casting to the use of a gun is a disanalogy because society does not recognize a gun for any purpose other than harm.
No, I compared a gun to a hand used in an aggressive manner. You compared the hand to a spell. But just in cast you decided to be pedantic I sited an example of something that could be both beneficial and harmful immediately after that. Obviously you want very badly to be pedantic because you completely and utterly ignored that I said that.
And why, exactly, do you not fear cars that are proven to be deadly? Because there are laws, uniform guidelines (etiquette as it were) and enforcement that keeps this threat to a minimum. That's exactly right. You hurt someone, regardless, you're going to face some kind of retribution/punishment. Spell casting would be no different.
Well, like I said, if you are assuming a society that is highly regulated, then I am in agreement with you. I am just not making that assumption for all of Golarion. This does, however, bring up an interesting point that Marvel's X-Men series delves into a lot. How do you regulate people whose power level is far above that of the average regulator? Adventurers in general, and spell casters in particular, are easily on par with Mutants in regard to how much more powerful they are than the average citizen.
|
|
As PFS GM I ignore this. The alternative would be to tell the Tiefling player - and in this scenario your diplomacy modifier is -x (fill in a value you like).So do you think how Tieflings are treated should be subject to GM discretion? Should every GM be allowed to impose a -x on any charisma check when they feel it's appropriate? Or, should PFS just make a guideline that Tieflings should not experience negative modifiers as a result of race?
In a home non-PFS game I would do background appropriate modifiers - positive and negative.
In PFS I dont and the consensus seems to that this isn't done. I have never seen it apart of a few scenarios which explicitly list modifiers albeit likely for the original core races if material was written before a certain race/class was created.
This is necessary to keep a fair playing field. You can't decide - I'm a dwarf and I only do scenarios in the Five Kings Mountains.
I don't see a need for a similar approach to spell casting.
|
|
The baseline certainly has been raised in the 30 years I play.That's for sure; I have an old AD&D video game (go go TurboGrafx!) and DANG. Magic is RARE. O_O
This is another aspect. Do computer players expect a higher baseline? There tends never to be a negative backlash of magic use - apart of resource use - if you use magic in a computer game.
Oh - and I have never seen prestigitation in a computer game - the spell that some here seem to make me believe is universally cast.
Different media / different needs trump settings.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is necessary to keep a fair playing field. You can't decide - I'm a dwarf and I only do scenarios in the Five Kings Mountains.
I don't see a need for a similar approach to spell casting.
You know, you raise a very good point: that even if we establish a canon baseline for how the people of Golarion tend to view spellcasting, deviations may be necessary for the sake of organized play.
Congratulations on adding worms to the can. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy,
Granted I haven't read every post in this thread. But I've read most of them.
I'm not seeing the GMs who are stating all unknown casting is considered violence-inducing hostility. So from my perspective of I'm having a hard time seeing what you are arguing against.
Not always "violence-inducing", but there have definitely been some claims of "inherently negative/threatening".
LazarX reasons that since most published spells are "of the baneful variety", then casting in public without being an established pillar of the community is going to be viewed much like drawing a weapon.
He later says that part of making a good impression on people is "not being seen casting spells".
Recently (perhaps the previous page?) BNW was comparing spellcasting to raising your arms in the air and yelling "RRAAAARRRGGHH!!!". He didn't elaborate much further, but I took that to mean "inherently threatening unless the observer is privy to some very specific and exceptional context".
Also recently (last page or so), Mystic Lemur claimed (or seemed to; not quite 100% sure anymore) that even if, just prior to spellcasting, an observer had no reason to think you a threat at all; as soon as casting was introduced to the equation they would need to make a DC 20 Sense Motive in order to not believe you were about to do something violent. Regardless of what they thought of you 10 seconds earlier. That seems (to me) to be much more "spellcasting is inherently seen as hostile" than "circumstances might make spellcasting seem hostile".
So that's three posters off the top of my head. I think there were some less prolific commentators scattered in there as well, but they're harder to dig up. :)
|
|
If you walk around with a bucket labeled "genetically modified bacterium" do people say
A) The vast majority of genetic engineering has been used to benefit mankind by improving yields, reducing the need for pesticides and making possible a wide variety of products from cheese to beer. In all likelyhood its a tub of yogurt. The chances of me being in danger are minimal so I see no reason to react.
B) AHHHHHHH ANTHRAAAAAAAX!
People are not rational and they are very risk averse. That one time it was a fireball may not be very frequent, but you can bet its going to leave an impression not just on the individual witnesses but also on the culture.
Seeing someone cleaning their clothes with the spell would be the equivalent of seeing them dip a spoon in and start eating. Ok, NOW we know its safe. Move on.
|
|
If you walk around with a bucket labeled "genetically modified bacterium" do people say
A) The vast majority of genetic engineering has been used to benefit mankind by improving yields, reducing the need for pesticides and making possible a wide variety of products from cheese to beer. In all likelyhood its a tub of yogurt. The chances of me being in danger are minimal so I see no reason to react.
B) AHHHHHHH ANTHRAAAAAAAX!
People are not rational and they are very risk averse. That one time it was a fireball may not be very frequent, but you can bet its going to leave an impression not just on the individual witnesses but also on the culture.
Agreed. If there are 99 good spells and 1 bad one, people are still going to be worried that you are going to cast the 1 bad one. If spell casting is regulated, they will be less worried (assuming it is possible for that regulation to be enforced).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you walk around with a bucket labeled "genetically modified bacterium" do people say
A) The vast majority of genetic engineering has been used to benefit mankind by improving yields, reducing the need for pesticides and making possible a wide variety of products from cheese to beer. In all likelyhood its a tub of yogurt. The chances of me being in danger are minimal so I see no reason to react.
B) AHHHHHHH ANTHRAAAAAAAX!
C) Hm? Hm. I saw some guy carrying a bucket of germs; can you believe it? There oughtta be a law, blah blah blah...
People are not rational and they are very risk averse.
You know what humans do when they see a funny blue box sitting in the middle of town square? They keep walking.
|
|
However, Premise #1 is something that you just made up to support your conclusion, and has no basis upon which to stand
All of the arguments in this thread are made up since we are discussing a fantasy environment. I am not sure I understand your point here. Premise #1 is indeed based on an unverified conclusion. I don't argue that. Obviously you disagree with the conclusion I am basing that premise on but could you be more clear as to what part exactly you disagree with.
|
|
You know what humans do when they see a funny blue box sitting in the middle of town square? They keep walking.
To be fair, Londoners also keep right on walking through the zombie apocolypse.
|
|
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. ClarkI encounter advanced technology every day - stuff that is effectively magic to me.
I have yet to run from the room when I encounter it.
That's because you know technology is heavily regulated. Are we making that same assumption about all of Golarion? Is most of Golarion regulated anywhere near as much as modern civilized society? The fact that Pathfinders can get away with so much tends to imply, no.
|
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. ClarkI encounter advanced technology every day - stuff that is effectively magic to me.
I have yet to run from the room when I encounter it.
That's because you know technology is heavily regulated. Are we making that same assumption about all of Golarion? Is most of Golarion regulated anywhere near as much as modern civilized society? The fact that Pathfinders can get away with so much tends to imply, no.
I'm going to agree but rephrase, "The fact that characters in PFS can get away with so much tends to imply, no, for PFS."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You know, a few weeks ago I heard some angry noises coming from a block ahead and to the left while I was walking to my car after work. Nobody ahead of me seemed to take much notice, which made me curious. When I got to the end of the block and the source of the noise came into view, what I saw was four people in fist-fight (or rather, two people on the ground and one person moving from a person on the ground toward the other standing person and beginning to trade blows).
Violence in progress.
Several people just kept walking. I told the guy on the sidewalk behind me to call the police (I didn't have a phone), and then (to my shame) I kept on walking too.
------------------------
A couple years back, a rather large male got extremely upset on the bus I was riding. He was yelling, waving his arms, and looked like he was on the verge of getting physically violent. The driver kept driving, the passengers kept quiet, nobody did anything (until the guy got off, then there were one or two comments). Nothing more ever came of it.
------------------------
Those things happen, and they do stick in people's minds, but people don't modify their behavior. They get used to the daily routine. They keep doing what they're doing. They might be a little shaken the next day or two, but it's not long before everything's normal again and nobody's thinking of what might happen. People keep walking openly downtown. Nobody on the bus is scared that someone who looks unhappy is going to reprise what that one guy did.
Most people react (or fail to react) to things based on what they see every day, every week, every month, every year, for their whole lives. They'll remember the bad exceptions, but it has to be an ever-present danger (ex: "rough neighborhoods") before anyone starts thinking that that's what's coming.
|
|
That's a good point Jiggy.
I'd expect the average commoner to react similarly. Cross to the other side of the street mabye, but otherwise try to ignore the danger in the hopes they don't personally get wrapped up in it.
However, we are also sorta playing in Hollywood Land. We are creating our own stirring adventure thriller. As such, protagonists and antagonists alike will be a cut above (or below respectively) the norm.
In other words, if you are dealing with regular average citizens of some town, they likely aren't going to react to you negatively when you do something egregiously violent or public. Like you, in your first example, one might have the presence of mind to suggest someone call the town guard (or even do so themselves should they have the wherewithal).
If you are dealing with individuals who are important to the story, then chances are they will have a reaction other than passive self-preservation.
|
|
You know, a few weeks ago I heard some angry noises coming from a block ahead and to the left while I was walking to my car after work. Nobody ahead of me seemed to take much notice, which made me curious. When I got to the end of the block and the source of the noise came into view, what I saw was four people in fist-fight (or rather, two people on the ground and one person moving from a person on the ground toward the other standing person and beginning to trade blows).
Violence in progress.
Several people just kept walking. I told the guy on the sidewalk behind me to call the police (I didn't have a phone), and then (to my shame) I kept on walking too.
------------------------
A couple years back, a rather large male got extremely upset on the bus I was riding. He was yelling, waving his arms, and looked like he was on the verge of getting physically violent. The driver kept driving, the passengers kept quiet, nobody did anything (until the guy got off, then there were one or two comments). Nothing more ever came of it.
------------------------
Those things happen, and they do stick in people's minds, but people don't modify their behavior. They get used to the daily routine. They keep doing what they're doing. They might be a little shaken the next day or two, but it's not long before everything's normal again and nobody's thinking of what might happen. People keep walking openly downtown. Nobody on the bus is scared that someone who looks unhappy is going to reprise what that one guy did.
Most people react (or fail to react) to things based on what they see every day, every week, every month, every year, for their whole lives. They'll remember the bad exceptions, but it has to be an ever-present danger (ex: "rough neighborhoods") before anyone starts thinking that that's what's coming.
Yes, people's behavior will be based on what is the norm. I think what a large part of the argument here is what, exactly, the norm is in Galorian.
|
|
I'm going to agree but rephrase, "The fact that characters in PFS can get away with so much tends to imply, no, for PFS.""Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. ClarkI encounter advanced technology every day - stuff that is effectively magic to me.
I have yet to run from the room when I encounter it.
That's because you know technology is heavily regulated. Are we making that same assumption about all of Golarion? Is most of Golarion regulated anywhere near as much as modern civilized society? The fact that Pathfinders can get away with so much tends to imply, no.
This is a fair statement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to quote a post from Page 3 of this thread that I think has gotten lost in the last 9 pages.
Here is the section from the ISWG(pg 253) that ZomB mentioned:
Magic in the Inner Sea:ISWG wrote:Magic: The common citizens of the Inner Sea region, be they farmers or traders or city guards, know about magic. It's likely that they've seen magic spells in action, and have even been the beneficiary of healing magic or other minor effects at some point in their lives. Yet magic is not so universal a part of life for most of the Inner Sea's citizens that they've come to rely on it. It's seen most often as an extravagance or a reward used by the wealthy, or in a worst-case scenario as yet another tool a despot or monster might use to oppress honest folk. Magic is thus a source of wonder and awe and of fear, but since it's not a fundamental part of most folks' everyday lives, it's also often misunderstood.
I'm going to reiterate the most important line:
"Magic is thus a source of wonder and awe and of fear, but since it's not a fundamental part of most folks' everyday lives, it's also often misunderstood."
I think this is a pretty good baseline, and actually proves most people wrong who keep arguing that its part of every person's daily lives.