RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
According to the Gamemastery Guide—which is not specific to PFS—even the tiniest little community has access to at least 1st-level spellcasting. You only have to get more than 20 people in a settlement to have 2nd-level spells, 61 people for 3rd, etc.
Unfortunately for my dreams of Golarion where magic is everywhere, I read that section of the GMG differently. (Emphasis mine)
Spellcasting: Unlike magic items, spellcasting for hire is listed separately from the town's base value, since spellcasting is limited by the level of the available spellcasters in town. This line lists the highest-level spell available for purchase from spellcasters in town. A town's base spellcasting level depends on its type.
My reading of this seems to suggest a MAXIMUM level of spellcasting in a community without implying a minimum.
This also implies to me that Thod's list of settlements doesn't have quite as many exceptions, since "less than maximum" seems to be a correct option.
Chillblight, 12400, 9th; Large City; 7th
Hoarwood, 8970, 8th; Small City; 6th
Riba, 510, 2nd; Small Town; 4th
Whitethrone, 24900, 9th; ~Metropolis; 8th
Redtooth, 3500, 5th; Large Town; 5th
Morozny, 5830, 6th; Small City; 6th
Diobel 1400, 5th; Small Town; 4th
Falcons Hollow, 1400, 2nd; Small Town; 4th
Ilsurian, 790, 4th; Small town; 4th
Pezzak, 4800, 5th; Large town; 5th
Solku, 4900, 7th; ~Small city; 6th
Trunau, 780, 4th; Small town; 4th
Using the Settlement link above, the GMG seems to suggest the following:
Luddite (-2): Riba, Falcon's Hollow
Under (-1):
Par (+0): Redtooth, Morozny, Ilsurian, Pezzak, Trunau
Over (+1): Whitethrone, Diobel, Solku
Bonkers(+2): Chillblight, Hoarwood
However, I don't have the data in front of me to suggest whether or not a settlement has any modifiers which would increase their maximum spellcasting level (Academic, Holy Site, Magical, Magically Attuned, Pious, or Superstitious). That would likely draw some of the outliers closer to par.
Seven of these settlements follow the GMG (without modifiers), while five do not (without modifiers). On average (pick an average, any average), we're at GMG par for variance on the listed communities. I'd want more data before I felt comfortable asserting that Golarion fits the GMG mold in every way. But I certainly wouldn't support the statement that Golarion and the GMG are entirely at odds, given this sample of communities.
All of this to say that while my PFS experience has led me to hope for magic everywhere, I think that the baseline for the setting is a little lower than I'd anticipated.
Maybe I should skew more towards "In Absalom, casting detect magic without warning is like texting during a conversation. In Falcon's Hollow, casting detect magic without warning is like punching someone's mother in the face." Applying a single baseline across the board is going to get us in some trouble here.
(Some of this has been hashed out, I just needed to work it through myself.)
|
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.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing how prevalent magic is in Golarion (and PFS) and whether its rude to openly cast magic (even benign) at folks.
So your early comment about Masks of the Living God was a digression from the topic at hand then. Got it.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
According to the Gamemastery Guide—which is not specific to PFS—even the tiniest little community has access to at least 1st-level spellcasting. You only have to get more than 20 people in a settlement to have 2nd-level spells, 61 people for 3rd, etc.Unfortunately for my dreams of Golarion where magic is everywhere, I read that section of the GMG differently. (Emphasis mine)
Spellcasting: Unlike magic items, spellcasting for hire is listed separately from the town's base value, since spellcasting is limited by the level of the available spellcasters in town. This line lists the highest-level spell available for purchase from spellcasters in town. A town's base spellcasting level depends on its type.My reading of this seems to suggest a MAXIMUM level of spellcasting in a community without implying a minimum.
A spell can't be the "highest-level spell available for purchase" without being, in fact, available for purchase.
|
|
Sure it can Jiggy. Maximum does not mean its available. When you create a village one of the stats you derive is max caster level of an item. But that doesn't mean you'll find an item of that caster level.
All maximum tells you is that's what's possible. The GM determines what's actually there based on circumstances. In most cases in PFS I'm going to assume things based on what makes sense. I'll post a bit later regarding examples that have actually come up in PFS play where I had to make a call.
But suffice it to say Maximum does not mean mandatory or actual. Just what's possible.
|
|
I agree with you about what maximum means. But the book doesn't say maximum (in regards to spellcasting services, anyway). Arkos said maximum. The book says "highest available".
Still doesn't mean it is available. Otherwise you would never have 20 person farming communities that have no spellcasters.
|
I also think it's important to note that just because spellcasting is "available" doesn't mean that there's a spellcaster. For example, the 20 person thorp w/ lvl 1 available spellcasting may mean that there's a single potion of CLW that the town priest keeps tucked away for an emergency.
The real question here is as much "how prevalent are spellcasters" as it is "how prevalent is spellcasting."
While it's true that most commoners (based on what we've seen from ISWG and other sources) may have had some magic cast in their vacinity or on them at some point in their lives, doesn't mean that it's "common" or that they'll be ok with spells being cast constantly around them. Sure, that overturned cart crushing the driver, no one is going to argue when your caster whips out bulls strength so someone can lift it off the poor fellow, but that's not what the OP was really about was it?
In typical social situations, what's the reaction going to be? If the caster hasn't made his intention clear and gotten the person's ok, probably fear or aggression from the non-magical person being targeted.
And we can't really compare magic to phones, guns, or anything, because all of those are items that we can readily identify, which is not something that can be done with magic. Sure, you're not going to freak out if someone reaches into their pocket at work, because you know that 99% of the time, it's a phone. Take away that consistency though, and assume that 99% of the time it could be Ray of Frost, or a Malicious Prestiditation, and you'll start noticing those fast movements much more frequently.
The vast majority of primary source material we have is the published scenarios, APs, modules, and guidebooks. All of these are written with the adventuring party in mind, so magic, traps, danger, etc. are all far more prevalent than "normal" life should/would be.
For PFS purposes, I think they'll just refer you back to the scenario in question and ask the GM to make his/her judgment based upon on the NPCs are written up, without assuming some grander, world spanning meta perception of magic.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
A spell can't be the "highest-level spell available for purchase" without being, in fact, available for purchase.According to the Gamemastery Guide—which is not specific to PFS—even the tiniest little community has access to at least 1st-level spellcasting. You only have to get more than 20 people in a settlement to have 2nd-level spells, 61 people for 3rd, etc.Unfortunately for my dreams of Golarion where magic is everywhere, I read that section of the GMG differently. (Emphasis mine)
Spellcasting: Unlike magic items, spellcasting for hire is listed separately from the town's base value, since spellcasting is limited by the level of the available spellcasters in town. This line lists the highest-level spell available for purchase from spellcasters in town. A town's base spellcasting level depends on its type.My reading of this seems to suggest a MAXIMUM level of spellcasting in a community without implying a minimum.
Huh. I guess I read that as "potentially available" rather than "always available" due to setting variability.
If always is implied, how do we then determine which 1st level spells are always available at a thorp? Is that distinction relevant, or can we say that every thorp has access to both protection from evil and, say, blood money? Don't we have to say yes since there isn't a table to tell us otherwise?
By demanding consistency, we're getting into a consistency problem. Maybe a consistency vortex?
|
|
I agree with you about what maximum means. But the book doesn't say maximum (in regards to spellcasting services, anyway). Arkos said maximum. The book says "highest available".Still doesn't mean it is available. Otherwise you would never have 20 person farming communities that have no spellcasters.
Sorry, this just made me blink. Someone want to explain to me how "available" is not equal to "available"?
|
As previously mentioned by PFS rules you can always get personal spellcasting services up to 3000gp in any settlement, though you can never get 7th level spells anywhere. The 3000gp limit only excludes a handful of spells with expensive material components.
This means in PFS you can get access to 6th level spells in any Thorp. There are a bunch of 11th level casters around. Do not intimidate the locals ;-)
There are also likely a bunch of PFS scenarios that could be easily solved by the local 11th level casters. I am tempted in the next scenario like this to go and have a very polite word with them ;-)
Sure, that overturned cart crushing the driver, no one is going to argue when your caster whips out bulls strength so someone can lift it off the poor fellow, but that's not what the OP was really about was it?Actually, it's a crucial question to be answered because it means that spell casting, in and of itself, is not rude. To the extent that what you say is true, then it means that it is the result of the spell that determines it's appropriateness. If we agree that no one is going to complain when spells are used to assist someone in your example, then it's question of what spells are acceptable to cast depending on the setting, and not whether it is acceptable to cast at all.
That leads inexorably to the question of what happens when someone casts a spell that is not recognized or for which a bluff fails?
I want to know what magic PCs and NPCs can and cannot use at a social gathering or when conducting business deals on behalf of the Society. While the question of how many casters should one find in thorp is of some academic interest, it's largely that--academic.
The context has always been important. For the overturned cart example, the PCs (or the spellcaster) will be discussing options, and when the strong characters can't lift the wagon, the spellcaster will likely tell the lifting PCs that he will cast bull strength on them. Cast, lift, person rescued.
But, the people around the overturned cart will have heard the discussion, and know what the spellcaster is casting (or supposed to be casting).
Would a merchant be as accepting to have potential customers cast a spell before negotiating with him? I suspect that the merchant would be less than pleased.
In a social setting with VIPs, the person casting will likely have an effect on how people react - someone known will likely have an easier time of it. But an unknown, well, are they trying to cast dominate person on one of the VIPs, magically sway the attendees in some way, or perhaps they are only trying to chill their drink?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The OP. He wants Mike and John to codify what a GM can penalize for, or have NPCs elicit negative reactions to.By demanding consistencyWho's doing that? I thought the discussion was between "the GMG is the baseline, and of course exceptions exist" and "the GMG is just flat-out wrong".
I see nothing in the OP suggesting he wants anything more than a baseline frame of reference.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
By demanding consistencyWho's doing that? I thought the discussion was between "the GMG is the baseline, and of course exceptions exist" and "the GMG is just flat-out wrong".
I meant specifically stating that every community must have access to every 1st level spell per GMG now begs the question about which 1st level spells they have access to. All of them? Some of them? Is THAT up to the GM?
My comment about consistency is that if we want to use the GMG to confirm how Golarion already exists, then we have to continue to do that. We can't say "Yes, all thorps have 1st level casting, because Table: Settlement Statistics says so, but I as the GM get to decide which spells that is because there isn't a table that says anything about it."
I think our readings of the GMG point out two options.
1. The Spellcasting column of the table indicates that this level of casting is always available in this town, but nothing higher. All spells of that level must also be available. Therefore, the people of this community encompass a wide enough array of casters to cast every one of these spells.
2. The Spellcasting column of the table indicates that this level of casting is potentially available in this town, but nothing higher. Spells of this level may or may not be available, based on the nature of the town or GM judgment. Therefore, the people of this town may not necessarily include spellcasters, and certainly not the array of casters needed to cast every spell known at that level.
Spellcasting Economy: Option 1 gives GMs no leeway to decide what is up with the economy of a given town. Option 2 allows the GM to make decisions based on their judgment about the economy of a given town.
OP Discussion: Option 1 makes magic a thriving business in every single town in Golarion, so magic is common. Option 2 means that there are some towns that may or may not have access to a magical business, so magic is more rare.
To attempt to bring this thread back together, I'd like to suggest that evaluating the magical economy of these towns, rather than making an analogy to our own world, is a solid way to determine how the people of Golarion feel about magic.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
The OP. He wants Mike and John to codify what a GM can penalize for, or have NPCs elicit negative reactions to.By demanding consistencyWho's doing that? I thought the discussion was between "the GMG is the baseline, and of course exceptions exist" and "the GMG is just flat-out wrong".
That seems like a specifically negative reading of the OP, which is a request to find out how magic works in social situations. While this discussion has moved far into mechanics and "volleys of arrows to the face," the OP itself is all about the "fluff" of the situation.
Please, Mike and John, feel free to give us some "fluff" on how magic works in social situations. I'll be especially happy if there aren't any mechanics attached at all.
I don't care much for how to penalize a player. I very much care about how common magic is on Golarion in terms of canon.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think our readings of the GMG point out two options.
1. The Spellcasting column of the table indicates that this level of casting is always available in this town, but nothing higher. All spells of that level must also be available. Therefore, the people of this community encompass a wide enough array of casters to cast every one of these spells.
2. The Spellcasting column of the table indicates that this level of casting is potentially available in this town, but nothing higher. Spells of this level may or may not be available, based on the nature of the town or GM judgment. Therefore, the people of this town may not necessarily include spellcasters, and certainly not the array of casters needed to cast every spell known at that level.
Alternatively, the GMG means what it says when it describes that column as referring to the highest-level spellcasting available. Meaning, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever of which or how many spells are available at that level, just that of all the spells you could possibly purchase in that town, the highest-level spell among them is that level.
I think we get into trouble when we try to paraphrase "highest-level spell available" as being something else (like "maximum level possible" or "all spells of this level are available" or whatever). The column in the chart means exactly this: the highest-level spell available is that level. Maybe there's a cleric or a well-read wizard with lots of spells of that level, or maybe there's a single sorcerer who knows one spell of that level. The chart doesn't imply anything one way or the other. It just says that of the spells you could buy, the highest-level one(s) is/are that level.
To attempt to bring this thread back together, I'd like to suggest that evaluating the magical economy of these towns, rather than making an analogy to our own world, is a solid way to determine how the people of Golarion feel about magic.
Yes! Exactly! Thank you! :D
|
|
I see nothing in the OP suggesting he wants anything more than a baseline frame of reference.The OP. He wants Mike and John to codify what a GM can penalize for, or have NPCs elicit negative reactions to.By demanding consistencyWho's doing that? I thought the discussion was between "the GMG is the baseline, and of course exceptions exist" and "the GMG is just flat-out wrong".
Go upthread and look at his response to me when I basically said this is what he was doing.
|
|
Just to throw some thoughts out there, I am currently GMing The Dragon's Demand, and it is set around a fairly small, out-of-the-way place.
The town consists of 378 people, IIRC, and there are several places in town that have magical goods for sale, and several spellcasters.
So, a small, backwoods type of place, the kind of place where you could definitely characterize some, if not most, of the general residents as woodsy, in a Jed Clampett kind of way, still have several spellcasters, including priests of multiple religions, who can cast some spells.
Also note, as long as the locale has a competent Cleric and Wizard, a fair amount of the spells that would be generally looked for would be generally available, since both those classes can pretty much totally change their spell loadout within 24 hours.
Depending on their level and background, they may or may not be able to have a spell available in 30 seconds to an hour, if they are former adventurers who would be used to needing versatility at any time.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I think we get into trouble when we try to paraphrase "highest-level spell available" as being something else (like "maximum level possible" or "all spells of this level are available" or whatever). The column in the chart means exactly this: the highest-level spell available is that level. Maybe there's a cleric or a well-read wizard with lots of spells of that level, or maybe there's a single sorcerer who knows one spell of that level. The chart doesn't imply anything one way or the other. It just says that of the spells you could buy, the highest-level one(s) is/are that level.
The compromise approach, I see how it is.
3: The Spellcasting column of the table indicates that this level of casting is always available in this town, but nothing higher. Some spells of this level are available, based on the nature of the town or GM judgment. Therefore, the people of this town certainly contains spellcasters, though not necessarily a wide enough array to cast every spell known at that level.
Unfortunately, this is the possibility that gives us the least to go on in terms of magic in Golarion in a general sense, since it doesn't include a meaningful standard. But what it does say is that the attitude towards magic is going to be different in places where magic is more or less commonplace. So if there isn't a Golarion standard for magical availability, then there shouldn't be one for attitude towards magic?
Should there be a relation that guides GMs? If a community is listed as Academic, Holy Site, Magical, Magically Attuned, or Pious, should we consider those to be places where magic is common? In Superstitious ones, magic is rare? In "normal" communities, we leave it to the GM to decide?
Net for me from this discussion so far:
In a Small City (spellcasting availability 6th) that is Magically Attuned (bringing it to 8th), I'd expect spells and spellcasters everywhere. In a city like this, the magic-phobic are the ones who get in trouble for beating down a spellcaster who is casting a legal spell that is known to be harmless, because the magic-phobic one should have known better (Darn right you need Spellcraft in this town!).
In a Small Town (spellcasting level 4th) that is Superstitious (bringing it to 2nd), the spellcaster is going to get strung up by the magic-phobic for casting the crazy-scary-magic that could kill everyone in town no matter what they say about it.
The question is still what happens in a Large Town (spellcasting level 5th) that doesn't have modifiers to guide me. Unfortunately, the compromise approach is largely unhelpful in this case. Which is specifically what I'm hoping to hear about in this possible blog post!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unfortunately, this is the possibility that gives us the least to go on in terms of magic in Golarion in a general sense, since it doesn't include a meaningful standard.
I disagree, at least as far as this thread's topic of determining a baseline for how NPCs react to spellcasting is concerned. Even the interpretation to which you're replying still tells us this:
Excepting special cases, even a community of 15 people will have at least one spellcaster, and it just goes up from there.Remember, we started with "How do NPCs react to you casting a spell in front of them?"
There was a response of "Well, that depends at least partially on how common/everyday magic is."
One way of determining how commonplace magic is, is to look at that chart. Even without hard-and-fast rules for just how much magic is available for purchase, we still know that any given (N)PC's in-character assumption is that if they can find a settlement, even a tiny thorp, they can expect to find a spellcaster who will cast spells for them for a fee.
That very helpfully rules out some rather significant possibilities as to the "common-ness" of spellcasting. More to the point, we can rule out the idea that commoners would react to seeing magic like a third-world tribesman might react to seeing my cigarette lighter produce fire out of thin air. In a less extreme but still very helpful example, we can also rule out a Lord of the Rings-level reaction, where magic is something exotic and awe-inspiring that you've heard of but never would have imagined you'd actually get to see first hand.
As a general statement, we can at least declare that the bulk of the population has seen spellcasting first-hand. What's rare and exceptional and exotic is a settlement that doesn't have open access to at least some level of spellcasting, not a settlement that does.
Now, there are still plenty of other things to consider when determining an NPC's reaction to seeing you cast a spell (even as a general baseline), but as far as the "how commonplace is it?" facet is concerned, the above seems like enough to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Personally, I don't think the game benefits when one GM says a priori that a specific spell is not available and another GM says it is...for the same scenario and same subtier. I feel the same way about using magic at the Blakros wedding. I have no problem with a GM being able to adjudicate whether directly harmful magic could be pulled off based on circumstance, but there should be a baseline concept of spells/abilities that do not offend people e.g. Guidance, Create Water, Detect Poison, etc. Grant it, the list would be problematic. But some kind of guideline would be very helpful, even if it was scenario specific. And again, we're not talking about just spells, the title of the thread refers to "magic."
Absolutely. Especially in PFS, the a goal is to avoid absurd table variation. Which means we either need someone to tell us what spells are available, or we assume that all of them are. And if all of them are always available, then why am I getting shot in the face with a volley of arrows for casting detect magic?
The more we talk about it, the more this disconnect bothers me.
If all 1st level spells are available, how many casters do we need? How many spells are unique to a particular class? Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Paladin, and Inquisitor. Does that hit them all?
That's 7/20 villagers of a thorp. Are the other 13 really so magic-phobic at that point that common magic freaks them out enough to leap into a murderous frenzy? From an economic point of view, those 1st level spells bring in a good portion of the town's profits. Are they really barred from casting spells in public, when they make up a third of the population? Is it even possible to consider people to be magic-phobic in such a place?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
As a general statement, we can at least declare that the bulk of the population has seen spellcasting first-hand. What's rare and exceptional and exotic is a settlement that doesn't have open access to at least some level of spellcasting, not a settlement that does.
Now, there are still plenty of other things to consider when determining an NPC's reaction to seeing you cast a spell (even as a general baseline), but as far as the "how commonplace is it?" facet is concerned, the above seems like enough to me.
I entirely agree with this. And I feel like this conclusion gives us the ability to begin answering the OP's questions without skewing into the appropriately named LOTR territory.
But now I have to teach, so I'll have to think about this for a few hours!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Who is casting that magic is an important thing.
Indeed, that's another facet of the "How would people react?" issue. Maybe we should make a list of primary factors?
However a strange wizard walking into town starts arcane casting, people are going to assume that he's up to some form of mischief.
Unless of course he's either:
1) In a big enough place that no one would assume he was "a strange wizard walking into town" rather than "just another caster I've never personally met, just like 95% of this city"; or2) Made a good impression on the locals already, so they trust him.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
There was a response of "Well, that depends at least partially on how common/everyday magic is."
One way of determining how commonplace magic is, is to look at that chart. Even without hard-and-fast rules for just how much magic is available for purchase, we still know that any given (N)PC's in-character assumption is that if they can find a settlement, even a tiny thorp, they can expect to find a spellcaster who will cast spells for them for a fee.
Who is casting that magic is an important thing. Since we're going by the default lists of spells for arcane and divine classes. A local well respected cleric could get away with casting detect lie or detect evil especially if it's in an appropriate situation such as mediating a dispute.
However a strange wizard walking into town starts arcane casting, people are going to assume that he's up to some form of mischief. Take a look at the list of arcane spells. With very few exceptions, they're of the baneful variety.
Of course, if some rural villager's only exposure to magic is the local druid casting cure light wounds on injured farmers, or a priest casting detect poison to double-check that basket of mushrooms, they're likely to view magic as relatively benign. But for an urbanite, who hears about invisible cutpurses lurking in alleyways, or evil necromanctic cults attacking the opera, or has ever visited the Blakros Museum, they might view magic as more inherently dangerous.
From the previous examples mentioned, I liked the leader versus Starbucks discussion about appropriate use of scanning or weapons.
Supposing you're going to a king's castle for a dinner meeting. You are told to leave your weapons with the guards (but are allowed to keep non-obviously-magical daggers, because people often brought their own knives to a table), told to leave armor you can't hide (so maybe you could sneak in some leather armor), and are told not to cast spells.
At the dinner, there are still some active spellcasters. They just all work for the king. They're casting Heroes Feast or Unseen Servant or what have you. There's also some archers standing in the corners, openly toting bows, but that's allowed because they work for the king.
If you cast a spell to chill your drink, you might be shot! If you want to do something to the king, best be a rogue (or something similar), and even then, the king's confessor has an array of healing spells.
In an emergency (the king and his confessor get poisoned, say?) you might not get shot if you heal one of them. Or maybe you will. You should say what you're doing first (and if you're lying, make a Bluff check!).
Now what if the king visits a noble? Presumably he's not going to toss out the local guards and casters. So his people and the lord's people can tote weapons and spells, but maybe no one else. (This makes it easy for the lord to assassinate the king, sadly.)
Now let's lower the stakes. The PCs meet in an inn, in a small thorp where there's a single priest and no wizards. The bouncer half-heartedly asks them not to openly tote big weapons and flashy or hostile magic. The PCs ignore him and cast a lot of Light and Prestidigtation spells. Other than maybe complaining about rudeness, the innkeeper won't interfere unless the PCs start busting up the place or casting obviously hostile magic. A subtle mage could literally charm the innkeeper and get away with it, since that's not overtly hostile (as long as no one makes their Sense Motive or Spellcraft check).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, having gone around for days on this, we come to the only sensible answer: trust your GM to tell a good story. If your GM doesn't tell a good story, don't play with them.
Ultimately, you *have* to trust your GM in this game. Let's leave GMs a bit of room to tell a story, shall we?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we acknowledge as the books suggest, that most spells are in fact weapons, why should we expect any different flavored answer than we would to the question. "Is it socially acceptable to draw your weapon in public?"
Greater number in existence does correlate to more commonly used/expected.
One of my brothers has a (legal) concealed firearm on his person pretty much at all times. People who know this do not start flinching every time he reaches for his pocket. Why? Because even though the possible answers to "What could he be reaching for?" always includes "Gun", that's not what he's usually reaching for.
In any settlement with abundant spellcasting, people are going through their daily lives seeing the handful of harmless/utility spells being cast over and over and over and over again, but potentially going years without ever seeing a fireball.
People do, as you suggest, based their reactions to things on what they expect. However, they do not base those expectations on list of all the things it could be; they base them on what it usually is. If 95% of spells are offensive, but 95% of a person's experiences with seeing people cast are harmless, they're going to react to spellcasting based on the latter, not the former.
And frankly, it's a bit unsettling that I even need to explain this.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
[One of my brothers has a (legal) concealed firearm on his person pretty much at all times. People who know this do not start flinching every time he reaches for his pocket. Why? Because even though the possible answers to "What could he be reaching for?" always includes "Gun", that's not what he's usually reaching for.In contrast, there is a fellow who is rather fond of taking his 2nd amendment rights to the limit. He does go into parks openly wearing several pistols and a loaded machine gun. He takes umbrage over the fact that he is frequently stopped and questioned by park rangers even though state law allows him to go walking about with a readied aresenal.
Circumstances alter cases.
Most Pathfinder characters are already walking around with readied arsenals on their backs, usually without repercussions.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If 95 percent of a spelllist is harmful and baneful magic, and a person rarely sees a mage at work, the assumption that 95 percent of those times are going to be harmless is suspect.
About your "and a person rarely sees a mage at work" stipulation. That hardly seems to be the norm. In a town of 20 people, everyone knows each other (heck, at that population level, they probably all depend on each other for survival), and most such towns have one or more spellcasters. The prevalence of magic just goes up from there.
Spellcasters are not this rare and mysterious thing you seem to so desperately need them to be.
And besides that, I've met/seen several clearly-identifiable soldiers, whose skillsets are largely deadly, and whom I've had no more reason to trust than any other stranger. Interestingly enough, I didn't flinch whenever I saw them reach for something I couldn't see or walk toward me.
Your ideas that the makeup of the spell lists in the book indicates people will react to spellcasting with those proportions in mind is completely absurd.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
2) Part of making that good impression is by not being seen casting spells.
Jumping back in to disagree. There are trusted** casters in every settlement in Golarion who make a living and contribute to the settlement's economy BY casting spells. That's what the entire GMG discussion was about.
If you changed your condition to "Part of making that good impression is by not being seen casting harmful spells, unless doing so is for the good of the community" I'd be tempted to agree.
**I realize that you could conceivably create a town where the casters are all black market dealers or hermits or general creeps who aren't trusted. I don't believe that's the norm, so I am discounting this in my argument.
|
Why is nobody doing a little bit of research ... There is soooo much published material out there from Paizo.
So lets take a look at one well developed settlement - Ravengro, small town. Source: Carrion Crown, The Haunting of Harrowstone, p56+
Population 311, 281 humans, 12 halflings, 8 elves, 7 dwarves, 3 half-elves
Spellcasters:
Divine:
Vauran Grimburrow, cleric of Pharasma, lvl. 7
Unnamed - a dozen acolytes (level 1-3 clerics of Pharasma serving under Vauran)
Arcane
Professor Petros Lorrimor, Wizard 7 (deceased - the campaign starts after his death)
Kendra Lorrimort his daughter - Diviner 2
Alendru Ghoroven Expert 1, wizard 5 - retired ! wizard-turned-teacher, owner of the Unfurling Scroll - earns additional money by trading in minor magical items
Jominda Fallenbridge - owner of Jolinda's apothecary, Alchemist 2
Or by magical related buildings
Temple of Pharasma - it should be noted this is the only temple/shrine in town
Lorrimor household (ex-wizard 7 and daughter wizard 2)
Magic Shop and Alchemist shop
Total magical spell casters mentioned
13 divine casters
3(4) arcane casters
I should add that a level 2 ranger is the town sheriff and gets mentioned. So don't expect a lot more unmentioned spell casters.
That makes 4% of population being divine casters and 1% arcane casters
That is not to far of a Thorpe of <20 having a shaman, wise woman, witch, etc. to cast minor level 1 spells. You can't have half a spell caster after all.
My take:
Clergy (wise woman, witch, druid, alcolyte) are relative common and every settlement has one living there or at least access to someone wandering multiple tiny places. This is in full agreement with the GMG.
Arcane casters are less common and likely will nearly always be part of 'important people' in a settlement. This makes a lot of sense as sorcery is not common (but hermits exists even or especially far away from large settlements) and wizards need education and training.
There will be regional differences. I mentioned Irrisien in an earlier post. Assume that witches there take over a lot of the role of clergy. In Galt you will have recruitment of all divine casters for Zon Kuthon and they will be concentrated towards the capital. In Rhahadoum you will all divine casters are suppressed and will be less common. Alkenstar is too close to the Mana Waste - so magic is not being used much. Some centers with Magic academies will attract arcane casters and more will flock into these region. Some areas like the Land of the Mammoth Lords are superstitious - so arcane casting will be very rare.
So back to the baseline:
Expect your peasant to have seen a bless or cure light wound being cast. But that might be close to what he has seen - unless he is in a larger settlement.
Arcane casters (as well as higher level divine casters) are among the ruling class, rich, nobility.
A lot of people have no class at all - experts, peasants etc. They form the backbone of society but are not worthwhile being detailed.
Your opinion might vary - but please if you disagree show some data and sources with examples why I'm off and Ravengro can't be seen as a good example.
There are more detailed settlements out there but I can't be bothered to look at all of them on my own. It takes time ...