Socially acceptable use of magic in PFS social settings?

[Jiggy]

@Thod — I'm not trying to say that the settlement rules are 100% no-deviations-allowed hard-and-fast no-exceptions etc etc etc.

But we don't need information with that level of precision to get an idea of how "common" or "everyday" magic is in the world. All we need is a baseline.

If we travel to a little village of 15 people, we can expect 1st-level casting. As you suggest, there could certainly be some variance: they might not have all the niche little spells (especially the paladin/ranger ones that require a 4th-level NPC), but they have someone. Quite possibly a couple of someones (like maybe a wizard and a cleric).

We don't need absolutely every 1st-level spell to be available in order to look at the 15-person village that includes a caster and make some inferences about how often people see magic happening.

Will there be some village-to-village variance as to exactly which 1st-level spells are available? Of course. Does that change the fact that every tiny little community has at least some 1st-level casting available for purchase, and does it change the impact of that fact on the likely social norms regarding spellcasting? Nope, not really.

[Silbeg]

On this subject, I would assume that a good number of these casters are Adepts, able to cast a single first level spell. That'd be the town's "holy man", or whatever. When it says 1st-level casting, it doesn't have to mean that it would be from an adventuring class. Likely, the local priest would have "Cure Light Wounds" memorized, in case someone gets hurt in the fields. However, they would be hesitant to cast it for anyone they don't know (only locals, in dire straits, would receive such treatment).

Taking that further, even in a settlement that could boast a level 4-5 Adept, the spells would be things like Bull's Strength (for when they need to lift something very heavy) or the like.

Casual casters may be reasonable common (1 in 20 people, or so), but that doesn't mean that everyone would be used to seeing magic being cast on a daily basis.

[Jiggy]

Remember that the casting levels mentioned in the GMG are the spell levels available for purchase. So your example of only one caster with only one spell who wouldn't cast it except in an emergency for a local, is the exception, not the normal idea of what "thorps have 1st-level casting" means.

What the GMG's chart means is that if you walk into any random village of 10-20 people, then (barring special circumstances) you can expect to find a caster who will cast 1st-level spells for you for a fee.

[Chief Cook and Bottlewasher]

Eric Saxon wrote:

So, the percentage of 1st level spell casters on Golarion is roughly 20% of the population? Yeah, I have a feeling that the Game Mastery guide might be a bit off. But I won't argue with what you are claiming, since I'm sure its there.

Its a poorly written hypothesis, but if its there then we have a lvl. 3 spell caster for every 20 people.

I'm amazed that these people need heroes, with such an abundance of lvl. 3s.

It's reasonable for every settlement to have access to a midwife, and to someone who performs marriages and burials. Who will often be some sort of caster. In either case, it might be one person who travels around half a dozen or more hamlets.

[Robert A Matthews]

Nothing says the bigger towns have more than one spellcaster either. You could very well come across a small town (201-2000 population, level 4 spellcasting) that only has a small handful of spellcasters and maybe only one of them is a level 7 Wizard. You might not be able to find someone to cast Cleric spells in this town or vice versa. I think it's good that this is ambiguous so you can tailor spell availability to your individual campaign. Just because a Thorp (20 people) has level 1 spell casting doesn't mean that there is one spellcaster for every 20 people. The larger cities could have the same number of spellcasters that are just higher level.

[Eric Saxon]

My suspicion is that the whole GMG thing is wrong. We'd need John or MB to chime in on what exactly Golarion looks like. Because if you can find a lvl. 2 spell available in any community of 20 people, then by definition you can find a lvl. 3 spell caster in any community of 20+ people, which seems a bit whacky IMO. That level of magical power seems more than a little off in any world.

Perhaps the GMG numbers should be multiplied by 10.

So any settlement of at least 200 can find a 2nd level spell. But any settlement of 20+ essentially claims that at least 10% of the population is of some sort of spell caster class.

[Jiggy]

Eric Saxon wrote:

My suspicion is that the whole GMG thing is wrong.

Based on what facts?

[Eric Saxon]

Jiggy wrote:

Eric Saxon wrote:

My suspicion is that the whole GMG thing is wrong.

Based on what facts?

Based on simple logic.

Based on the fact that I need to make a spellcraft roll to recognize lvl. 1 spells. I would imagine if 1 in 20 people can cast CLW or most other lvl. 1 spells, then lvl. 1 spells would be common knowledge DC 0. My PC would recognize them instantly. And quite frankly, if its that common, it ceases to be magic(al).

And besides, why would you need a Heal Skill if 1 in 20 people can cast CLW and CMW on a daily basis. What's the point of having a doctor, if every shlub in a settlement of 20+ people can get access to CLW and CMW.

So my suspicion is that someone wrote those numbers into the GMG and no one else considered the implications of what those numbers mean.

And then we can go right into the canon of Razmiran. How exactly are these people fooled into believing that Razmir's priests are priests? CLW and CMW are cast by 1 in 20 people. And no one picked up on it. The entire population just swallowed it even though they have a local priest who can cast lvl. 2 divine spells for every settlement of 20+ people?

Yeah, I'm not sure magic is all that common if entire nations can be scammed by a wizard and his false priests. I'm not saying its not possible but I'm guessing its not likely.

[Jiggy]

Eric Saxon wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Eric Saxon wrote:

My suspicion is that the whole GMG thing is wrong.

Based on what facts?

Based on simple logic.

Logic, however "simple", starts with facts. Hence the question.

Quote:

Based on the fact that I need to make a spellcraft roll to recognize lvl. 1 spells.

That is a fact, yes.

Quote:

I would imagine if 1 in 20 people can cast CLW or most other lvl. 1 spells, then lvl. 1 spells would be common knowledge DC 0. My PC would recognize them instantly.

That is not a fact, it's a conclusion (that you're in turn using as a premise for your larger argument). One for which you've given no premises at all, therefore there's no "logic" involved.

What causes any spell that someone in town is capable of casting to become instantly recognizable by anyone in that town? Show me your logic on that point.

Quote:

And quite frankly, if its that common, it ceases to be magic(al).

Sounds less like logic and more like "This is what I picture in my head." Your imaginings are not canon, I'm afraid.

Quote:

And besides, why would you need a Heal Skill if 1 in 20 people can cast CLW and CMW on a daily basis. What's the point of having a doctor, if every shlub in a settlement of 20+ people can get access to CLW and CMW.

Because that caster lives somewhere, and may not have accompanied you on your hunting-trip-turned-disaster.

Quote:

So my suspicion is that someone wrote those numbers into the GMG and no one else considered the implications of what those numbers mean.

My suspicion is that you brought some assumptions into your game and the rules don't match, and you're more willing to throw out the rules than your own assumptions, but your assumptions feel self-evident enough to you that you think they're logical.

Unless, of course, you have additional premises to present?

[N N 959]

Eric Saxon wrote:

And quite frankly, if its that common, it ceases to be magic(al).

I think this statement underscores a lot of the sentimental/emotional predisposition many players and even authors struggle with. There's a strong desire for magic to be as mysterious and arcane to the average Golarionites as it is to us. I see a popular desire to have the average person on Golarion react as someone in the Middle Ages might react to magic: fear and suspicion. And yet, our society has never had actual magic. We've never seen someone raised from the dead, turned into a frog, or create rain for crops. We've had tricksters and deception, but throughout history, the entire society has never known magic to truly exist.

More than a few posters keep insisting that spells should be viewed as weapons and weapons alone, with no acknowledgment of the many non-violent or practical benefits spells can bring. Even worse, every act of spell casting involves waiving a wand in someone's face or casting a spell right at them.

While I find the larger question interesting on an academic level, since none of this can be resolved through fact, I am hoping to see some discussion on what makes sense in the game.

What rules about using magic/feats/abilities in social and/or public settings makes sense in PFS?

If casting Detect Evil as a spell is bad, then is it fair to let someone use it as an SLA? If it is, then what should PC's be experiencing if all these spell-like and supernatural abilities can be used with impunity?

[Lormyr]

Eric Saxon wrote:

My suspicion is that the whole GMG thing is wrong. We'd need John or MB to chime in on what exactly Golarion looks like.

While I personally agree with you as far as thinking that the GMG proposes that spellcasters are entirely too common, the scale mentioned above is in fact what it claims.

I doubt it was a mistake of any kind. I just think that you and I (as well as others of similar mind) would just prefer that spell availability be less common. In my case, not so much so as to be rare. . .just not available in every back water village.

[LazarX]

N N 959 wrote:

More than a few posters keep insisting that spells should be viewed as weapons and weapons alone, with no acknowledgment of the many non-violent or practical benefits spells can bring. Even worse, every act of spell casting involves waiving a wand in someone's face or casting a spell right at them.

That's how the magic is presented in the rulebook. If you want to assume that the arcane lists have a whole trunkful of utility and helpful spells which aren't shown on the lists for some reason for player characters to learn, that's your lookout. But there isn't any text basis for that supposition. Despite Clarke quotes, magic is NOT tech. it is built on a structure determined largely by arbitrary divides and whim, and is highly idiosyncratic in nature. For most people in the game world, life is brutish compared to our standards.

Fact of the matter is that magic IS frequently used for horrific ends, curses, summoning of demons, raising the dead to create shambling monsters. Word of that is far more common and more widespread than using Fabricate and Wall spells to speed up building. Simmilarly, it's very rare for streets to be lit up with Eternal Flame devices. (they tend to get stolen) save in heavily patrolled upper class neighborhoods.

[N N 959]

LazarX wrote:

That's how the magic is presented in the rulebook.

Sorry, I can't agree that Create Water is presented as a weapon.

Quote:

If you want to assume that the arcane lists have a whole trunkful of utility and helpful spells which aren't shown on the lists for some reason for player characters to learn, that's your lookout.

No, I don't make that assumption. But I have seen authors introduce practical spells on occasion, whenever it suits them. But a more enlightened perspective suggests that since this is game about adventuring and conflict and not agriculture, the Plow Field spell isn't going to add much to the customer experience compared to Power Word Stun. And thus, it makes little sense to spend money to print it, write about it, and use it, even if some of the authors might agree such a category of spells would exist.

As an edit, I'll add that at some point in the existence of Golarion, spell casters for each race would exist who focused on creating magic for the peaceful betterment of their own civilization and not just the next biggest and baddest Evocation spell. Insisting that no such spells would exist because they don't exist in the books is a failure to separate the financial decisions of TSR, WotC,and Paizo, with the very nature of civilization to advance itself.

[Eric Saxon]

Lormyr wrote:

Eric Saxon wrote:

My suspicion is that the whole GMG thing is wrong. We'd need John or MB to chime in on what exactly Golarion looks like.

While I personally agree with you as far as thinking that the GMG proposes that spellcasters are entirely too common, the scale mentioned above is in fact what it claims.

I doubt it was a mistake of any kind. I just think that you and I (as well as others of similar mind) would just prefer that spell availability be less common. In my case, not so much so as to be rare. . .just not available in every back water village.

I'm hoping that it was just one of those things that never got looked at until this thread was started. Heck, I've never seen lvl. 3 clerics and wizards come a-dime-a-dozen in any fantasy setting. And if those numbers hold up then every person on Golarion should have grown up with spellcasters in their immediate vicinity. Making them as common as sunshine.

[Lormyr]

That chart has remained largely the same since 3.0 came out, actually.

[sowhereaminow]

To monkey wrench the discussion: just because a community is larger and can access higher level spells, doesn't mean it has more casters. It can just means the casters they do have are a higher level.

I suspect (only a guess) that smaller communities only have a handful of casters at best. Larger communities with large churches and arcane universities probably have a higher number of casters per capita than the smaller ones.

[Thod]

Wow - we just out ruled the magic casting Hermit.

He lives on it's own. There is no spell casting for (maybe 1st level?) for a 'settlement' of 1. Therefore he can't cast (beyond 1st level).

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Just facts and logic

[Jiggy]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Didn't we both just agree that exceptions can exist?

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a post and reply. Leave personal sniping out of the conversation.

[Thod]

Exception

noun: exception; plural noun: exceptions

1. a person or thing that is excluded from a general statement or does not follow a rule.

Jiggy

The problem is you want to have it both ways. You want to insist we can derive information about the setting of Golarion from rules and ask for facts from other people.
But then you also state that there are exceptions.

I think the issue here is that the exception to the standard is the norm.

GMG wrote:

Level 1 caster for every 20 people - everybody knows one
Level 2 caster for every 60 people
Level 3 caster for every 200 people
Level 4 caster for every 2000 people
Level 5 caster for every 5000 people
Level 6 caster for every 10000 people
Level 7 caster for every 25000 people - though these are restricted in PFS

Now lets check facts how this translates to Irrisien

Algidheart p12, 6720 popultion, spellcasting 6th
Chillblight p18, 12400 population, spellcasting 9th
Hoarwood P22, 8970, spellcasting 8th
Riba p24, 510, 2nd
Whitethrone p30, 24900, 9th
Redtooth 3500, 5th
Morozny 5830, 6th

This makes it 7 out of 7 not following 'the rules'. So do we have 100% exemptions? Is there a trend. Yes - most settlements have actually higher spell casting levels. That makes a lot of sense - for Irrisien - as this is a land ruled by witches aka magic users.

Or take Towns of the Inner Sea
Diobel 1400, 5th
Falcons Hollow, 1400, 2nd
Ilsurian, 790, 4th
Pezzak, 4800, 5th
Solku, 4900, 7th
Trunau, 780, 4th

I'm still at 100% NOT following the GMG.

So in certain places of importance spellcasting can be a lot higher. It makes sense if you have witches ruling the place, temples of importance in the settlement.

At the same time you have places like Riba - a fishing town or Falcon's Hollow that are big enough but spellcasting is less common.

But the rules are no help to gauge prevalence of magic if Paizo itself doesn't follow them in Golarion.

[Jiggy]

Thod wrote:

(specific examples of entire blocks of published settlements that don't match the GMG chart)

Now, see, that would be a relevant set of facts. The kind I asked Eric Saxon for.

That's why I ask for facts up-front: we get those settled, and then we can build on a shared knowledge base instead of wasting time insisting we're right and calling each other stupid (whether directly, or by suggesting people don't know the definitions of common words).

Facts first, people. They make a difference—such as demonstrating a difference between published canon and published rules.

Now we can talk about which of the two published sources is more correct.

[Robert A Matthews]

Thod, did you factor in each of those settlements' modifiers, governments, qualities, advantages, disadvantages, etc? Most of them look pretty close to the guidelines in GMG. Even still, I have not seen one mention anywhere of how many spellcasters this means there are in each community. There could be a lot, there could be very few, it's up to how you run your campaign.

[Thod]

Robert A Matthews wrote:

Thod, did you factor in each of those settlements' modifiers, governments, qualities, advantages, disadvantages, etc? Most of them look pretty close to the guidelines in GMG. Even still, I have not seen one mention anywhere of how many spellcasters this means there are in each community. There could be a lot, there could be very few, it's up to how you run your campaign.

No - I just tried to get some printed data to show that magic isn't equally distributed as the GMG would suggest.

But I just remembered another source - Pathfinder Tales, Nightglass. In the start you have a screening program. Everyone with magical abilities at a certain age gets screened.
This would give a proportion of people who seem capable of magic. Total numbers would be lower as not evreryone able will necessarily be trained. I would have to reread it to tell numbers here. From memory there are 3 members of the village that get recruited (abducted might be more precise). The group tested was definately <100 from memory.

But this leads to another issue - at least in Galt. Spell casters get screened and taken away. That means there are many more in the capital that are trained according to ZonKuthon - but that will leave less spellcasting in the villages around.

Other areas of Golarion - other ways spellcasting is distributed. Rhahadoum - don't expect even in a larger settlement to find a cleric to cast CLW. On the other hand - Kyonin or lands with fey likely will have more than the baseline magic.

[Jiggy]

Thod wrote:

Other areas of Golarion - other ways spellcasting is distributed. Rhahadoum - don't expect even in a larger settlement to find a cleric to cast CLW. On the other hand - Kyonin or lands with fey likely will have more than the baseline magic.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't "the baseline magic" all we need to worry about for the purposes of this thread's main topic?

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed another post. Please be civil to one another.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

@Thod — I'm not trying to say that the settlement rules are 100% no-deviations-allowed hard-and-fast no-exceptions etc etc etc.

But we don't need information with that level of precision to get an idea of how "common" or "everyday" magic is in the world. All we need is a baseline.

If we travel to a little village of 15 people, we can expect 1st-level casting. As you suggest, there could certainly be some variance: they might not have all the niche little spells (especially the paladin/ranger ones that require a 4th-level NPC), but they have someone. Quite possibly a couple of someones (like maybe a wizard and a cleric).

We don't need absolutely every 1st-level spell to be available in order to look at the 15-person village that includes a caster and make some inferences about how often people see magic happening.

Will there be some village-to-village variance as to exactly which 1st-level spells are available? Of course. Does that change the fact that every tiny little community has at least some 1st-level casting available for purchase, and does it change the impact of that fact on the likely social norms regarding spellcasting? Nope, not really.

The passage from ISWG has already been quoted. So GMG baseline or not, you still have to factor the ISWG in with greater weight since that's the setting guide for Golarion.

[Jiggy]

@Andy — Indeed; yummy yummy facts. "The GMG might be wrong because the ISWG conflicts with it" is much different than some folks' "The GMG is probably wrong because I think it's silly". :)

[Eric Saxon]

So, the question remains. How prevalent is magic use in Golarion. Is it 1 in 20 people or 1 in 200 people or 1 in 2,000? Because in a medieval family of 6 children. You can extrapolate that if each of those people has 6 children, then the average person will have at least 3 or more likely 4 family members that are spell casters, either a cousin, an uncle, an aunt, a parent or a grandparent.

So, if I grow up in Golarion and have 80 family members, cousins, uncles, aunts, parents, grand-parents, siblings. Then in the 1 in 20 GMG standard, 4 of them are likely to be spell slingers of one sort or another.

And this would have an effect on how I react in a social setting to someone else casting a spell vs. the "I met my first spell caster when I arrived in Absalom's Grand Lodge."

So, could John or MB chime in on this. Are the GMG numbers the standard? Or are Golarion numbers different from those presented in the GMG? Could Cheliax for example raise an army of a 100,000 magic users? Could Absalom conscript 15,000 spell casters to its defense?

[Jiggy]

Indeed Eric, comparing the GMG to the ISWG* certainly makes it unclear what "normal" is; far less clear than I originally thought. Good thing they're looking at maybe doing a blog about it. :)

*Not counting the application of the GMG's modifiers as mentioned by Robert Matthews, which I'm not in a position to go through at the moment.

[Thod]

A different question

Which baseline magic?

a) Number of people with potential to cast magic (as I said earlier - Nightglass might be your best chance to get a number for humans)

b) Number of people actually capable of casting a spell as they have been trained - this baseline certainly is lower as many are not trained. And if you read some of the canon you find that spellcasting can be pretty deadly. Less than 50% of potential shadow casters of ZhonKhuton actually survive the training. Similar for one of the Arcane academies in an earlier book that is strong on Necromancy. The weaker / failures are used by the stronger ones to advance.
This is also a reason you hardly find a wizard in a small village. Wizard = education and training that you just don't get there. But that still opens positions for shamans and sorcerers.

c) Of is the baseline what is acceptable and openly used. Take Rahadoum - surely there are many potential holy casters but they don't practice or are driven into the underground. Similar for aracane casters in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords.

d) Is the baseline for humans or other races. Surely in regard to magic distribution elfs > humans > dwarfs

a) should be most evenly distributed over all of Golarion. b) becomes more spotty. c) could rule out 95%+ of certain spell casting in whole regions compared to a).

[Spaarky]

Keep in mind that the Core Rule Books like UC UM GMG are general setting books for any game, where as the ISWG is Golarion specific, so I would suggest that the numbers in there apply more accurately.

[N N 959]

Eric Saxon wrote:

And then we can go right into the canon of Razmiran. How exactly are these people fooled into believing that Razmir's priests are priests?

In 1997, we have people believing in Heaven's Gate and we don't even have real magic that can be faked.

And after GMing Mask of the Living God, it's pretty clear that most people know or suspect what is really going on, but fear, intimidation, and bribery can go a long way.

[N N 959]

Thod wrote:

c) Of is the baseline what is acceptable and openly used.

I'm looking at this. With the hope that a holistic view on magic is taken. As I stated earlier, Pathfinder is about might and magic, not about farms and crops. Paizo isn't going to make money burning resources to publish splat books on the latest farm magic or even the latest fashion magic. But I'm still waiting for Paracountess Zarta to show up at a party in a dress of strings and beads on which umpteen Continual Flames have been casts to cover her whole body.

"Oops, did I just cast that Dispel Magic on Zarta? I swear I meant to cast Guidance on myself. Not sure how I got those confused."

[Thod]

Here is another angle to get numbers

100 City locations - Table 7-40 GMG

I would rate the following as 'magic related'.

2 Abbey
3 Alchemist
19 Basilica
32 Cathedral
33 Chapel
34 Church
66 Magic Shop
73 Monastery
82 Rectory
90 Temple

It doesn't mean that because 10 out of 100 entries are related to magic that this = 10%. You will encounter many more town houses as cathedrals. But there is another interesting bit about this list.

Magic seems dominated by religion. Expect some form of religin in even the smallest village. A shrine - maybe only visited by a wandering cleric once a month - up to a cathedral in a city.

But it seems pretty much to lack any arcane magic related buildings. Surely if arcane magic is very prevalent then there have to be many, many buildings related to it.

This indicates to me an imbalance between arcane and divine magic with the latter much more prevalent (again - with exceptions like Irrisien where witchcraft is dominant or Rahadoum where divine magic is outlawed or Alkenstar that developed gun powder because of the close by Mana Waste).

[ZomB]

Spellcasting modifiers in the GMG for settlements with certain "qualities":

Academic: +1
Holy Site: +2
Magically Attuned: +2
Pious: +1
Superstitious: -2

And for having a government type of "Magical" +1 level

And to restate the GMG table for available spellcasting:

Type - Population - Highest level Spellcasting available for purchase
Thorp 1-20 1st
Hamlet 21-60 2nd
Village 61-200 3rd
Small Town 201-2000 4th
Large Town 2001-5000 5th
Small City 5001-10000 6th
Large City 10001-25000 7th
Metropolis 25001+ 8th

[Thod]

ZomB wrote:

Spellcasting modifiers in the GMG for settlements with certain "qualities":

Which page - I looked in the GMG but couldn't find the chapter all this is coming from. Likely me just being daft and looking at the wrong pages.

[N N 959]

Thod wrote:

Magic seems dominated by religion. Expect some form of religin in even the smallest village. A shrine - maybe only visited by a wandering cleric once a month - up to a cathedral in a city.

But it seems pretty much to lack any arcane magic related buildings. Surely if arcane magic is very prevalent then there have to be many, many buildings related to it.

This indicates to me an imbalance between arcane and divine magic with the latter much more prevalent...

I think the reason for this is rather obvious. The authors invariably draw from our own history. Every small town in South America has a church if nothing else. In Europe, the most expensive buildings in any small town was usually the church.

But we've never seen what a small population of arcane casters would do to a society after centuries of existence and acceptance. The acceptance part being key.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

N N 959 wrote:

Eric Saxon wrote:

And then we can go right into the canon of Razmiran. How exactly are these people fooled into believing that Razmir's priests are priests?

In 1997, we have people believing in Heaven's Gate and we don't even have real magic that can be faked.

And after GMing Mask of the Living God, it's pretty clear that most people know or suspect what is really going on, but fear, intimidation, and bribery can go a long way.

I disagree. Just because players make metagame assumptions for their characters all the time does not mean the average person in Golarion does not believe the Razmiran lie. That's what all those feats are for, fooling the populace.

I've both played and run that module and completely disagree with your statement.

[R2D2TS]

In regards to alternative spells, I think the closest we have right now are the Downtime spells in Quests & Campaigns. (Not helpful for PFS but they exist)

[ZomB]

Thod wrote:

ZomB wrote:

Spellcasting modifiers in the GMG for settlements with certain "qualities":

Which page - I looked in the GMG but couldn't find the chapter all this is coming from. Likely me just being daft and looking at the wrong pages.

All of the ones I quoted are on page 207

(EDIT: It helps having the searchable PDF of the GMG for this kind of research, but I only have the hardback ISWG - but hey it was free!)

[N N 959]

The average Golarion may not even know of Razmir.

Considering that the Razmirian method is the use of bribary, intimidation, and straight out aggression, I'm not sure what lie there is to believe. The followers are after wealth and power and they have to bribe the city officials to let them do what they do. All of their low level members are Thugs.

Do people believe The Living God is a true god? I think the more appropriate question is do they care? It doesn't matter what Razmir is or is not, what matters is how the cult affects their lives. People without hope will cling to any belief that offers them that.

And I'm sorry, when the city guard is being bribed to let them beat up on business owners, it's clear what is going on. It's like arguing that people think the Mafia is a legitimate business.

[Mike Franke]

I think that while rudeness is an important topic for discussion, utility might be more telling. Are spells that detect alignment, truth, magic, etc. useful??

I think when applied to the general public this answer is probably not. Lets take the example of a gate to a city.

If the gate crew has the ability to detect alignment is that useful? In my opinion not really. Detect spells as have been noted in other threads only detect active intent or relatively powerful auras. Most people will not register at all. Even if everyone did, does that help. No it doesn't. The best most reliable merchant in the region might be evil. There is nothing in the rules that says being evil is in any way "wrong". Am I going to ban this person from my city or establishment. No I am not.

What about detecting magic? Golarion is fairly flooded with magic. Even if you consider magic to be rare a caster has to concentrate for multiple rounds to even guess at what magic might be. Are you going to airport like delay every person that detects for several minutes to determine first the presence of magic, then the strength, then the kind, etc. Again there is nothing wrong with magic so why do it? I wouldn't. It would be like baning all technology to prevent someone carrying a pistol.

What about detecting truth. Now this would actually be rude but also impractical. People lie for all kinds of reason. My Grandma lied about her age til the day she died. Little white lies, harmless evasions. You tell someone they look nice when they don't. You say nice to meet you when it really isn't. You say I'm ready when you really aren't. Is every person going to be subjected to an interrogation to differentiate the white lies from the black. Again it really isn't practical in the regular course of life or even business.

If you are are meeting the president you expect to go through a detector and before that a background check. If you are buying coffee you don't and it would be stupid for Starbucks to waste its time and money doing so.

[ZomB]

Thod wrote:

GMG(ZomB) wrote:

Level 1 caster for every 20 people - everybody knows one
Level 2 caster for every 60 people
Level 3 caster for every 200 people
Level 4 caster for every 2000 people
Level 5 caster for every 5000 people
Level 6 caster for every 10000 people
Level 7 caster for every 25000 people - though these are restricted in PFS

Sorry if I wasn't clear when I posted this, I was extrapolating the _minimum_ possible number of casters inferred by the GMG table. Trying to establish the minimum baseline setting for magic. The actual number of casters is likely to be higher than this.

If you recheck those settements you posted against the summary GMG table I later posted you will find about half match the GMG for spellcasting level. Others range from +2 to -2.

I don't know where you got those cities from so I can't check the source. The spellcasting stat and modifiers aren't in the wiki entries I looked at.

[Eric Saxon]

Poor developers, they probably got to work on Monday morning, grabbed a cup of coffee, barely got their eyes opened and started reading this. And 2 hours later, they're like "I should have taken a sick day, today."

---

P.S. I wonder if they now have to have a staff meeting, to decide what level of magic is prevalent on Golarion, or if they just go "Let them fight it out and let's not get involved in this 'dork fight.'" LOL

[Thod]

ZomB wrote:

Thod wrote:

ZomB wrote:

Spellcasting modifiers in the GMG for settlements with certain "qualities":

Which page - I looked in the GMG but couldn't find the chapter all this is coming from. Likely me just being daft and looking at the wrong pages.

All of the ones I quoted are on page 207

(EDIT: It helps having the searchable PDF of the GMG for this kind of research, but I only have the hardback ISWG - but hey it was free!)

I was only 4 pages away posting excerpts from the city location table ...

The modifiers are what make the whole system workable and believable. At the same time in PFS we tend to tread every settlement of a certain size the same.
You get every item (up to a certain value), every spell casting (up to 3000 gp) and every race or faith tends to be treated the same.

It would be interesting to see reactions if I would look up settlements and apply rules like racially intolerant settlement (members of the unwelcome race or races pay 150% of the normal price for goods and services and may face mockery and insult, or even violence) or pious - any faith more than one alignment step different than the communities official religion is at best unwelcome and at worst outlawed - obvious worshipers of an outlawed deity must pay 150% of the normal price for goods and services and may face mockery, insult, or even violence).

Guess as Pathfinders we always have our sources. But that doesn't mean that everything is available for the general populace.

[DesolateHarmony]

ZomB wrote:

Thod wrote:

ZomB wrote:

Spellcasting modifiers in the GMG for settlements with certain "qualities":

Which page - I looked in the GMG but couldn't find the chapter all this is coming from. Likely me just being daft and looking at the wrong pages.

All of the ones I quoted are on page 207

(EDIT: It helps having the searchable PDF of the GMG for this kind of research, but I only have the hardback ISWG - but hey it was free!)

PRD Gamemastery Guide on Settlements and Spellcasting

[Thod]

ZomB

Pathfinder Campain Setting
Irrisien Land of the Eternal Winter (I gave page numbers)
Towns of the Inner Sea (I didn't bother as each town has it's own chapter and should be easy enough to find)

Yes - including the modifiers they should follow quite well. But I got the (wrong) impression that a given size = spell casting availability.

Another issue with Thorpes and Hamlets - availability doesn't mean that necessarily a cleric is in the settlement itself. A healer might serve a few of them.
And PFS rules that allow ANY low level spell would need to inflate numbers of spell casters to enable that. As I said - more or less one from each class as every single spell can be purchased.
This makes sense for a smooth game - but magic availability shouldn't be deducted from that.

Just a thought experiment:
A thrope has spellcasting level 1.
Assume no wizards but sorcerers level 1 or 2 who do the spell casting.

39 different arcane level 1 spells. A sorcerer at that level knows 2 level 1 spells. That means we need 20 sorcerers in each thorpe to be able to buy every single spell.

There we have it - thorpes without wizard are 100% sorcerers.

Spoiler:

And I didn't even add spells from APG and UMG

I know that this doesn't make sense - but I just follow 'the rules' to the limit until they break