Socially acceptable use of magic in PFS social settings?

[N N 959]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I believe gnomes get prestidigitation as a spell like ability, namely it has no components. I don't think most people would dive for the floor or draw a blade, but they might ask what she was doing if they could observe it.

They might, say the first 10000 times gnomes started doing this. But then after a decade or two, it would catch-on for not just gnomes, but many races. After centuries of people using the spell to do stuff like that, society would be desensitized to it. I think this aspect of spell use seems difficult to put in perspective. Nobody has grown up with this stuff.

Perhaps a useful analogy is in the presence of guns as portrayed in Old Western movies. The average town person didn't carry a gun, but a noticeable percentage of the population did. Every time someone reached for his gun in a drinking saloon, the bartender doesn't dive behind the bar. It's only when it's clear that someone intends harm do people pay attention. Why? Because most people aren't going to start shooting each other for no reason. Anyone who does is hunted down and hanged.

So knowledge that naked aggression would be punished becomes part of the ethos of the community. People would rely on that ethos so as not to live in constant fear the next spell cast is going to kill them.

This doesn't answer the question about which spells might be considered as an assault on someone, but I think it is one way to understand how a society might function when many citizens are capable of killing each other without notice.

[Eric "Boxhead" Hindley]

Mekkis wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I can't think of a single reason, in an entirely friendly and social setting someone would randomly start casting a spell out in plain view without providing their own context or excuse or asking permission beforehand.

So yes. Without some good reason (that the NPC could see without thinking about it--the host is choking on poison) spellcasting in A social setting is likely to get a negative reaction. Depending on circumstances, that negative reaction might be violent.

Gnomes of Golarion p26 wrote:

Prestidigitation: While gnomes enjoy being able to

magically clean their boots or cool their ale as much
as anyone, they also find ways to use prestidigitation to
explore possibilities that might otherwise be difficult
to arrange. For instance, a gnome might flavor every
bite of a meal differently, using the spell as a magic
spice rack.

I can't imagine a gnome sitting down in a tavern, announcing "Hey guys, this food would taste better a with a bit of a chilli-flavour, so I'll cast Prestidigitation to flavour it, so I won't be fireballing you. Chill, mates." every time he wants to do that.

I'd imagine that while gnomes enjoy this, they also understand that not everyone gets it. It's no worse than assuming that everyone wants to skydive, or hike up a volcano or whatever, gnomes are weird.

I've been in and out of this thread. I don't want to say that spellcasting is always bad, but unexpected spellcasting should be treated like someone pulling a knife on a bus- you might not mind, but odds are someone will. Pulling a knife at a wedding- very bad form. Pulling a knife while shopping- people will likely make a scene. Seriously, try it sometime if you don't believe me.

I firmly believe that pulling a knife is a great analogy for spellcasting, spoken as someone who sees knives pulled regularly at work (technical theatre work). In context, I can see it as fine. I also take safe (enough) public transit (in Calgary, Alberta, Canada), and someone pulling a knife on transit makes me signal for help. Ymmv.

[N N 959]

LazarX wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

As far as I know, there are no rules for how to cast a spell clandestinely. Are you saying that all social spellcasters should take Silent Spell and invest heavily in Stealth, so they can always sneak up on their targets and charm them from the shadows first?

Tell me something, in real life, how would you react if you realized that the person whom you've just met, or even someone you knew had just deliberately tried a mind control power on you, that you knew could have actually worked?

I may be wrong, but I suspect RDN is struggling with the same question I have. How are all these spells that a clearly designed to manipulate NPC's suppose to be used without being attacked?

For example:

How did the author of Charm Person envision the spell being used at 1st level?

The range is to close cast on someone without their noticing. So I, like I'm sure many GMs did upon first reading it, just assume you walk up and cast the spell on the target. It works, you're golden. If it fails, then it fails and maybe the target gets suspicious someone is up to something, but they have no idea who.

PRD wrote:

Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.

Yet, it's obvious when someone is using magic and a 1st level caster is certainly not going to be able to disguise it.

I am in a 1st level PbP at this very moment where the bard cast Charm Person on one of the two guards and succeeded. Did the GM have the other guard go into attack mode? Nope. The other guard has no reaction and the charmed guard convinces the other guard to leave us alone. Honestly, I think that's how the author who wrote the spell probably envisioned it working.

[N N 959]

Eric "Boxhead" Hindley wrote:

I firmly believe that pulling a knife is a great analogy for spellcasting, spoken as someone who sees knives pulled regularly at work (technical theatre work). In context, I can see it as fine. I also take safe (enough) public transit (in...

It really isn't a great analogy. A great analogy would be pulling an object that could become a knife, or spoon, or bottle of ketchup, or ice cubes for a drink, or a band aide.

The spell isn't a definite weapon that can be used as a tool. It's a tool that the observer won't recognize until it's already in use. A closer analogy would be pulling a Swiss Army knife on a bus.

[strayshift]

N N 959 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

As far as I know, there are no rules for how to cast a spell clandestinely. Are you saying that all social spellcasters should take Silent Spell and invest heavily in Stealth, so they can always sneak up on their targets and charm them from the shadows first?

Tell me something, in real life, how would you react if you realized that the person whom you've just met, or even someone you knew had just deliberately tried a mind control power on you, that you knew could have actually worked?

I may be wrong, but I suspect RDN is struggling with the same question I have. How are all these spells that a clearly designed to manipulate NPC's suppose to be used without being attacked?

For example:

How did the author of Charm Person envision the spell being used at 1st level?

The range is to close cast on someone without their noticing. So I, like I'm sure many GMs did upon first reading it, just assume you walk up and cast the spell on the target. It works, you're golden. If it fails, then it fails and maybe the target gets suspicious someone is up to something, but they have no idea who.

PRD wrote:

Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.

Yet, it's obvious when someone is using magic and a 1st level caster is certainly not going to be able to disguise it.

I am in a 1st level PbP at this very moment where the bard cast Charm Person on one of the two guards and succeeded. Did the GM have the other guard go into attack mode? Nope. The other guard has no reaction and the charmed guard convinces the other guard to leave us alone. Honestly, I think that's how the author who wrote the spell probably envisioned it working.

Agree, aside from a bard with Spellsong, it would be pretty much useless otherwise.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

@ N N 959

Go up thread. I gave RDN several options that doesn't include casting in plain sight.

[N N 959]

Andrew,

I think RDN is suggesting that these spells are not written with any expectation that they be cast out of sight of the target or that there is any special requirement to cast surreptitiously. In fact, imposing such a requirement is arguably a house rule.

My quote from the PRD suggests that even when you fail, the target "cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack." What does that mean? I'm not 100% sure, but it clearly is an indication that there is some impunity intended for the spell caster. A GM who has the guard immediately attack the caster after he saves, is arguably ignoring that piece of RAW isn't she?

Maybe someone who has read a lot Pathfinder Tales has an example of how various authors have approached this spell or others like it?

[Jiggy]

N N 959 wrote:

My quote from the PRD suggests that even when you fail, the target "cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack." What does that mean? I'm not 100% sure, but it clearly is an indication that there is some impunity intended for the spell caster. A GM who has the guard immediately attack the caster after he saves, is arguably ignoring that piece of RAW isn't she?

Remember that the sentence starts by saying they can feel a hostile force. They can't determine the nature of the attack, but the thing whose nature they can't determine is "the attack", which earlier in the sentence is also referenced as feeling a hostile force.

Once they've made the save, they know they were attacked. If that attack coincided with when they saw you casting a spell at them, they can put 2 and 2 together.

But really, do we need to figure out how NPCs react when PCs attack them (albeit mentally)? I thought the point here was to talk about how (if?) NPCs react when PCs don't attack them.

[N N 959]

Here's the first part of the quote:

Quote:

A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle,

"Or a tingle"? If the intent is to allow an NPC to immediately attack the spell caster, why would it be ambiguous as to what happened? You're suggesting that game designers wanted NPC guards to immediately start attacking the spell casting wizard the moment they felt a tingle? That doesn't make any sense.

While I completely agree that logically someone could put 1 & 1 together, the only reason to write the saving throw rules in this manner is to provide some measure of protection for the caster.

Yes, part of my original question is to understand how all these social manipulation spells are suppose to work when cast in a social environment...you know...as intended?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

N N 959 wrote:

Andrew,

I think RDN is suggesting that these spells are not written with any expectation that they be cast out of sight of the target or that there is any special requirement to cast surreptitiously. In fact, imposing such a requirement is arguably a house rule.

My quote from the PRD suggests that even when you fail, the target "cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack." What does that mean? I'm not 100% sure, but it clearly is an indication that there is some impunity intended for the spell caster. A GM who has the guard immediately attack the caster after he saves, is arguably ignoring that piece of RAW isn't she?

Maybe someone who has read a lot Pathfinder Tales has an example of how various authors have approached this spell or others like it?

Why does the spell need to indicate the emotional state the target should have if he sees someone casting the spell at him?

Spell descriptions tell you how they work. The setting, scenario, or module and barring those having pertinent info the GM determines how NPCs react to what a character does.

I think it ludicrous to argue that randomly casting a spell at a stranger wouldn't elicit some form of negative response. The argument then becomes more ridiculous when you insinuate that the GM is cheating in PFS because the spell doesn't indicate that tge act of casting in a strangers face might be viewed as hostile.

I can't believe you actually believe what you are saying. It makes no sense.

Magic is dangerous. Most folks won't take kindly to it randomly happening to them without some circumstance or context that would dictate otherwise.

[N N 959]

Actually, on second thought, the "a tingle" may be the fluff for friendly spells that are resisted. So I would agree that per RAW the guard is always going is to feel a "hostile force" from a charm spell and not "a tingle."

[Ryan Blomquist]

N N 959 wrote:

"Or a tingle"? If the intent is to allow an NPC to immediately attack the spell caster, why would it be ambiguous as to what happened? You're suggesting that game designers wanted NPC guards to immediately start attacking the spell casting wizard the moment they felt a tingle? That doesn't make any sense.

While I completely agree that logically someone could put 1 & 1 together, the only reason to write the saving throw rules in this manner is to provide some measure of protection for the caster.

Yes, part of my original question is to understand how all these social manipulation spells are suppose to work when cast in a social environment...you know...as intended?

OK, magical compulsions in social exchanges I feel comfortable taking a stab at. We can all only guess how charm person was originally intended to work unless someone knows real-life magic and can reanimate the dead, which is still an Evil act everywhere except in PFS Bizarro World. Within the confines of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and by extension in PFS I believe a reasonable response from the other guard who just saw someone casting an unidentified spell while trying to talk his or her way past the guard's post would be to ask, "What was that?" The NPC definitely saw you doing something, he knows that something is "magic" because he's seen the village priest/town constable's cleric on retainer/whoever cast before, but he can't tell what it is because he never picked up any fancy book-learning. He's probably suspicious, though this is suspicion that is not headed for outright hostility. You performed an action in plain view, one the NPC understood on a rudimentary level. He can't see an effect from it. Why would he not wonder what your purpose was when you're trying to get something from him? I'd expect the same response from any adversarial engagement between strangers; you don't know that person, so you are suspicious of actions they take that might directly manipulate the outcome of your interaction but that you can't discern the purpose of.

More generally, magic is a powerful tool in Golarion that almost everyone has encountered at least once but is generally misunderstood by most commoners because they lack Spellcraft as a class skill and don't have the time to learn that skill. An NPC may have seen the village priest cast a cure wounds spell, seen him cast purify food and drink, but has also heard Old Cobb down at the inn after work tell stories to the villagers of Aroden conjuring lightning from the his fingertips to strike Tar-Baphon down on the Isle of Terror and the risen Whispering Tyrant decimating armies with fire while raising the dead before being laid low by the holy fires of Aroden's champion. NPCs know magic, both in practice and from folk tales; they are aware, on some rudimentary level, that magic has more dangerous purposes than cure light wounds and create water even if they don't have firsthand knowledge of it, thanks to oral histories. As a result NPCs react with healthy suspicion to strangers casting spells, often along the lines of, "Hey, what'cha doin' wit' all that finger-wagglin'? Ye tryin' ter ensorcell me?" or the like. There may be no mechanical impact on the exchange, but you've done something, and the person across the table/counter/palisade/gatehouse has recognized those things as some form of "magic".

Simply because a community is magic-saturated doesn't mean they don't have a healthy suspicion of it. On the contrary, the more magic-literate a community is, the more likely they are to understand the dangers of magic they haven't seen before, because they understand more of the full breadth of what magic can do. They're not reacting with torches and pitchforks, they're reacting with a healthy instinct for self-preservation by following up with a, "WTF, bro?" If a PC has a rational explanation for it, honest or not, then that is probably the end of it in most situations. The only exceptions to that I could see are events like those in Immortal Longings or the Blakros Matrimony, where guests, including the PCs, may have plenty to hide and social norms might (I repeat, might, as we don't have good direction on this from any sourcebooks thus far) dictate that divination magic cast on the attendees is verboten or considered rude.

Questioning public spellcasting:

So, this isn't relevant to the social reactions to spellcasting, and thus is spoilered, but I ask this question frequently and saw it referenced outside the context I understand the question to be used in, at least locally. Asking, "Are you really casting that spell right in front of the NPC?" has nothing to do with how the NPC is going to react. Some, I'd venture to say many, players will state, "I cast detect magic," as shorthand when what they actually envision their character doing is politely excusing themselves from the conversation, walking to a private corner or a washroom, and whispering the incantation for detect magic. Now, my example doesn't work because you can't whisper verbal components, but the idea the player has of casting discreetly is not conveyed to me as a GM when players announce, "I cast detect magic," in the middle of a wedding while chatting with three other people. I have to ask that question as a follow up because if I don't and they didn't want to openly cast in front of Hamaria Blakros they're about to earn a tongue-lashing they didn't deserve, which will prompt players backpedalling and denying their intent was to cast openly. Its not an adversarial question, just a follow-up question to clarify the action being taken because sometimes discretion *is* relevant and if I don't ask on the front end, then I don't know later if and when it does matter whether you really cast openly, as you stated, or whether you actually wandered off to cast but failed to convey it. From what I read in the thread prior to this it was often perceived differently than intended.

[Mystic Lemur]

Well, I noticed in the FAQ that a character is still allowed a save against a harmful potion, even if they believe it is a helpful potion. It doesn't specify, but I would assume you're still not required to make a save if it turns out to be harmless. I suppose next they'll rule that if a creature voluntarily lowers its spell resistance to receive a harmless spell, the caster will still have to make a CL check if he lied. :eyeroll:

So, apparently the designers do intend people to be able to somehow innately tell the difference between harmful and harmless spells even when there is no spellcasting involved. Personally, this runs counter to how I do things in my home games. This being PFS, though, I supposed it makes an argument against the position of magic automatically being considered rude/hostile.

Thread in rules forum for FAQing, if there's interest in this rabbit trail.

[Arkos]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Magic is dangerous. Most folks won't take kindly to it randomly happening to them without some circumstance or context that would dictate otherwise.

Around here, we play with far more bards and clerics than wizards and sorcerers. So saying that magic is dangerous is the nonsensical statement. Magic is that thing that keeps us healed, buffed, and in control of a situation, and is just as useful outside of combat as during.

None of this thread makes sense if all you've got is a "magic = FIREBALL" mentality.

Every day magic use is overwhelmingly benign. Fireballs get broken out during adventures and battles. I'd suggest that the number of fireballs cast anywhere on Golarion in a single day is less than the number of prestidigitation spells cast solely by gnomes in the same day.

But utility spells? Healing spells? Protection spells? That's what an economy is built on.

[trollbill]

strayshift wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

LazarX wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

As far as I know, there are no rules for how to cast a spell clandestinely. Are you saying that all social spellcasters should take Silent Spell and invest heavily in Stealth, so they can always sneak up on their targets and charm them from the shadows first?

Tell me something, in real life, how would you react if you realized that the person whom you've just met, or even someone you knew had just deliberately tried a mind control power on you, that you knew could have actually worked?

I may be wrong, but I suspect RDN is struggling with the same question I have. How are all these spells that a clearly designed to manipulate NPC's suppose to be used without being attacked?

For example:

How did the author of Charm Person envision the spell being used at 1st level?

The range is to close cast on someone without their noticing. So I, like I'm sure many GMs did upon first reading it, just assume you walk up and cast the spell on the target. It works, you're golden. If it fails, then it fails and maybe the target gets suspicious someone is up to something, but they have no idea who.

PRD wrote:

Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.

Yet, it's obvious when someone is using magic and a 1st level caster is certainly not going to be able to disguise it.

I am in a 1st level PbP at this very moment where the bard cast Charm Person on one of the two guards and succeeded. Did the GM have the other guard go into attack mode? Nope. The other guard has no reaction and the charmed guard convinces the other guard to leave us alone. Honestly, I think that's how the author who wrote the spell probably envisioned it working.

Agree, aside from a bard with Spellsong, it would be pretty much useless otherwise.

Every time I have seen an NPC attempt to cast any sort of mind control spell on a party member and the PCs had at least a rough idea of what was going on this immediately initiated a hostile response. I see ZERO reason why NPCs would behave any differently. Author's intent is irrelevant to this.

[trollbill]

N N 959 wrote:

Eric "Boxhead" Hindley wrote:

I firmly believe that pulling a knife is a great analogy for spellcasting, spoken as someone who sees knives pulled regularly at work (technical theatre work). In context, I can see it as fine. I also take safe (enough) public transit (in...

It really isn't a great analogy. A great analogy would be pulling an object that could become a knife, or spoon, or bottle of ketchup, or ice cubes for a drink, or a band aide.

The spell isn't a definite weapon that can be used as a tool. It's a tool that the observer won't recognize until it's already in use. A closer analogy would be pulling a Swiss Army knife on a bus.

That just makes it worse. People fear what they do not understand. If they have no idea what the result of that coalescing energy you are summoning is going to do then they are actually going to be more worried about it than the known potential danger of a knife.

[trollbill]

Jiggy wrote:

@BNW - For the most part, this thread isn't talking about how NPCs would react to you after feeling themselves make a saving throw against the spell you cast on them. It's about how they react when someone to whom they're indifferent starts casting a spell. Some GMs are saying that NPCs would be shoot you in the face before you finished the first finger-wiggle.

I remember running a 2nd edition adventure. Back then there was no Spellcraft skill for identifying spells. The adventure called for a Lizardman shaman to approach the party in a non-hostile manner and cast "Tongues" so that he could communicate with the party. I had the shaman step out on the path ahead of the party in a clear manner, he made a show of taking out all of his weapons and plainly laying them at his feet before starting to cast "Tongues." As soon as he started casting, the party attacked.

[Jiggy]

Heh, I just had a thought: a few individuals' comments in this thread start to seem pretty silly when you consider that there's an entire scenario devoted to trying to convince intelligent people that demons spewing out of the Worldwound really are a threat worth reacting to.

"I understand your concern, but I don't think that the possibility of demons decimating half the globe is really worth my attent— HOLY SH** THAT GUY OVER THERE IS CASTING A SPELL!!!"

[Mistwalker]

You are always going to have a different reaction from people to a possible distant threat to a possible immediate (as in kill you now) threat.

Edit: typo and clarification language

[Jiggy]

trollbill wrote:

I remember running a 2nd edition adventure. Back then there was no Spellcraft skill for identifying spells. The adventure called for a Lizardman shaman to approach the party in a non-hostile manner and cast "Tongues" so that he could communicate with the party. I had the shaman step out on the path ahead of the party in a clear manner, he made a show of taking out all of his weapons and plainly laying them at his feet before starting to cast "Tongues." As soon as he started casting, the party attacked.

I disagree with your implied assertion that players' metagamey behavior should be used as a framework for determining NPCs' behavior.

[Arkos]

trollbill wrote:

I remember running a 2nd edition adventure. Back then there was no Spellcraft skill for identifying spells. The adventure called for a Lizardman shaman to approach the party in a non-hostile manner and case "Tongues" so that he could communicate with the party. I had the shaman step out on the path ahead of the party in a clear manner, he made a show of taking out all of his weapons and plainly laying them at his feet before starting to cast "Tongues." As soon as he started casting, the party attacked.

I realize it was probably a while ago, but this can be a problem of presentation. If GMs treat spellcasting as something that demands a reaction, then attacks are likely. If GMs treat spellcasting as part of the story, then it becomes very awkward for the PCs to begin attacking.

"The lizardman stands up and begins speaking in a strange, hissing language. When no one replies, he shakes his head and casts a quick spell. Suddenly, he speaks in perfect Common. 'Thank you for coming to our aid, adventurers.'"

Would a PC really break into the middle of that sentence and say "Wait, spell? I attack. Stop telling your story and roll initiative."

If instead we run that as "The strange lizard man hisses and makes a series of arcane gestures... what do you do?" then sure, an attack is likely.

I don't mean to be critical about an event I never saw from years ago, but we as GMs have the ability to influence how the game goes. If we think magic is commonplace, then we don't HAVE to say "What do you do?" after every spell cast.

Attacking a non-hostile NPC casting a benign, personal spell should NOT be the norm.

[trollbill]

Jiggy wrote:

Heh, I just had a thought: a few individuals' comments in this thread start to seem pretty silly when you consider that there's an entire scenario devoted to trying to convince intelligent people that demons spewing out of the Worldwound really are a threat worth reacting to.

"I understand your concern, but I don't think that the possibility of demons decimating half the globe is really worth my attent— HOLY SH** THAT GUY OVER THERE IS CASTING A SPELL!!!"

Human nature. We react more strongly to something that is right in front of us than something that is half a continent away.

[trollbill]

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

I remember running a 2nd edition adventure. Back then there was no Spellcraft skill for identifying spells. The adventure called for a Lizardman shaman to approach the party in a non-hostile manner and cast "Tongues" so that he could communicate with the party. I had the shaman step out on the path ahead of the party in a clear manner, he made a show of taking out all of his weapons and plainly laying them at his feet before starting to cast "Tongues." As soon as he started casting, the party attacked.

I disagree with your implied assertion that players' metagamey behavior should be used as a framework for determining NPCs' behavior.

I agree that metagaming behavior is not a good framework. I am just not sure how much of that was actually metagaming.

[trollbill]

Arkos wrote:

I realize it was probably a while ago, but this can be a problem of presentation. If GMs treat spellcasting as something that demands a reaction, then attacks are likely. If GMs treat spellcasting as part of the story, then it becomes very awkward for the PCs to begin attacking.

"The lizardman stands up and begins speaking in a strange, hissing language. When no one replies, he shakes his head and casts a quick spell. Suddenly, he speaks in perfect Common. 'Thank you for coming to our aid, adventurers.'"

Would a PC really break into the middle of that sentence and say "Wait, spell? I attack. Stop telling your story and roll initiative."

No they wouldn't, but you have to finish casting the spell before they can understand what you are saying. The Lizardman never got that far. They beat the Lizardman in initiative and disrupted the spell before he could finish it.

Quote:

If instead we run that as "The strange lizard man hisses and makes a series of arcane gestures... what do you do?" then sure, an attack is likely.

I would submit that even commoner's in a magic heavy society have at least a notion of what spell casting looks like. Low level adventurers even more so. The DM deliberately trying to obfuscate that would not generate an honest reaction.

Quote:

I don't mean to be critical about an event I never saw from years ago, but we as GMs have the ability to influence how the game goes. If we think magic is commonplace, then we don't HAVE to say "What do you do?" after every spell cast.

I did everything I can think of at the time to make it clear the Lizardman was not trying to be hostile. To be honest, I was quite surprised by the party's reaction. All the more reason for its impact.

Quote:

Attacking a non-hostile NPC casting a benign, personal spell should NOT be the norm.

Agreed. Unfortunately, 99% of the population is going to have no idea you are casting a benign, personal spell. They only know you are casting a spell. Their response is going to be totally predicated on how much they trust you personally, albeit, a Sense Motive to determine intent might go a long way here.

[GM Lamplighter]

Arkos wrote:

Around here, we play with far more bards and clerics than wizards and sorcerers. So saying that magic is dangerous is the nonsensical statement. Magic is that thing that keeps us healed, buffed, and in control of a situation (...)

Look through Golarion's history, and find me one BBEG that tried to take over the world that wasn't a spellcaster. (OK, Choral the Conqueror, but c'mon, he was a dragon! Maybe.)

Sure, when Bob the healer casts cure light wounds every day, I won't freak out, our kids play together, and I've known him for years. Equating that normalcy with the reaction that some shifty adventurer (or even just a stranger) casting a spell evokes is stretching the similarity too far in my opinion.

(And I chose a knife in my example above, precisely because a knife is a common item that can be used in many ways. i 'd suggest that too most people, it is a tool that can be used as a weapon, not the other way around. Everyone knows a knife *could* be used as a weapon, even if most of the time it isn't. A commonner doesn't even know that there are different spells - they just think it's all "magic".)

[Jiggy]

If nothing else, this thread has made me think a lot about how *I* will be handling public spellcasting in the future. I think this is about where I'm at right now (feedback appreciated). Note that this is all before applying any regional caveats or whatever.

When the spell is declared, before it's cast:
If a PC casts a spell in front of an NPC, the first question is this: are they initiating hostilities? (In this case, "hostilities" includes anything the NPC might clearly not want, including charms.)

If so, then it's just like any non-magical initiation of hostilities: you don't get to take your first turn outside of initiative, so we roll it up and the NPC gets a check to see it coming (probably Sense Motive) and if he fails, the spell you announced is your action in the surprise round.

If it's not an initiation of hostilities, like casting light or guidance or whatever, then assuming no specific reason to dislike your spellcasting in general (like being less than indifferent toward you, or being a guard who just told you "no" to something you wanted, etc), then they don't react to the initiation of spellcasting and we move on to:

After the spell is cast:
Were the effects clearly visible (such as light) or easily inferred (such as sipping your drink, making a face, then casting a spell at your glass, taking another sip, and smiling contentedly)? If so, then as long as the effect of the spell is acceptable in that situation, no one gives a crap; in two seconds they've forgotten you even cast anything. (If the effect was not acceptable, then they react to that, rather than specifically to the fact that your unacceptable action was of magical origin. For instance, if you're at a bar and you cast a spell, touch yourself with your slightly-glowing hand which then looks normal again, then get up to go talk to the pretty girl, folks might have some things to say about you.)

If the effects are NOT obvious, then you might have a situation, simply because you did something but no one knows what. For instance, meeting an injured and frightened stranger, casting a spell with no visual effects and then reaching for them is going to scare the crap out of them unless you first ask permission to use some healing magic. Or if you ask someone something, they lie to you, and then they see you cast an unknown spell and start looking them up and down, that's going to affect the conversation.

On the other hand, situations where truly innocent/appropriate spellcasting's purpose isn't easily inferred is going to be rare. Someone casting spells on themselves on their way out of the city gate isn't suspicious in the slightest—people take precautions when traveling. Totally run-of-the-mill.

--------------------------------

That's about where I'm at right now. Anyone have any feedback, particularly of the "X seems unreasonable because Y" variety?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

trollbill wrote:

I remember running a 2nd edition adventure. Back then there was no Spellcraft skill for identifying spells. The adventure called for a Lizardman shaman to approach the party in a non-hostile manner and cast "Tongues" so that he could communicate with the party. I had the shaman step out on the path ahead of the party in a clear manner, he made a show of taking out all of his weapons and plainly laying them at his feet before starting to cast "Tongues." As soon as he started casting, the party attacked.

I disagree with your implied assertion that players' metagamey behavior should be used as a framework for determining NPCs' behavior.

Ideally you are correct. A GM Should be above a tit-for-tat metagamey response. Although it is easy to let yourself fall into that trap when the cool plot us ruined by metagamey paranoia or murder-hobo attitudes.

But don't you find it hypocritical of players to run roughshod over plots with murder-hobo emblazoned on their forehead and then have the gall to complain that their reputation precedes them?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

If nothing else, this thread has made me think a lot about how *I* will be handling public spellcasting in the future. I think this is about where I'm at right now (feedback appreciated). Note that this is all before applying any regional caveats or whatever.

When the spell is declared, before it's cast:
If a PC casts a spell in front of an NPC, the first question is this: are they initiating hostilities? (In this case, "hostilities" includes anything the NPC might clearly not want, including charms.)

If so, then it's just like any non-magical initiation of hostilities: you don't get to take your first turn outside of initiative, so we roll it up and the NPC gets a check to see it coming (probably Sense Motive) and if he fails, the spell you announced is your action in the surprise round.

If it's not an initiation of hostilities, like casting light or guidance or whatever, then assuming no specific reason to dislike your spellcasting in general (like being less than indifferent toward you, or being a guard who just told you "no" to something you wanted, etc), then they don't react to the initiation of spellcasting and we move on to:

After the spell is cast:
Were the effects clearly visible (such as light) or easily inferred (such as sipping your drink, making a face, then casting a spell at your glass, taking another sip, and smiling contentedly)? If so, then as long as the effect of the spell is acceptable in that situation, no one gives a crap; in two seconds they've forgotten you even cast anything. (If the effect was not acceptable, then they react to that, rather than specifically to the fact that your unacceptable action was of magical origin. For instance, if you're at a bar and you cast a spell, touch yourself with your slightly-glowing hand which then looks normal again, then get up to go talk to the pretty girl, folks might have some things to say about you.)

If the effects are NOT obvious, then you might have a situation, simply because you...

This works for me and us essentially what I've been arguing all along.

The GM just has to weigh all tge aspects of the circumstances and have his NPCs react (or not) accordingly.

[Jiggy]

Scott Young wrote:

A commonner doesn't even know that there are different spells - they just think it's all "magic".

I'm a bit skeptical of this claim, to be honest. Commoners live in communities, have families, know lots of people, and are at least reasonably familiar with the laws of their own homes. Unless the spellcaster(s) they've personally met make a habit of misrepresenting their own capabilities, any commoner who has more than the Village Idiot's 4 INT is going to know that different individual spells exist. And that's without even mentioning the annual public announcements of updated spell "ban lists".

Sorry, but even to the uninitiated, magic is not this vague and mysterious force of which the commoners have no comprehension. "It's all just magic" as a concept probably doesn't even exist in Golarion, since magic has been a collection of individual spells since the dawn of time.

[trollbill]

Jiggy wrote:

If it's not an initiation of hostilities, like casting light or guidance or whatever, then assuming no specific reason to dislike your spellcasting in general (like being less than indifferent toward you, or being a guard who just told you "no" to something you wanted, etc), then they don't react to the initiation of spellcasting and we move on to:

I would think that indifferent would still be a bit suspicious, but the response would be more like, "Excuse me, but what do you think your doing?" rather than drawing a knife and attacking.

What I usually do when a players states they are casting a spell and they are in a public place is point this out to them. "Are you attempting to cast a spell in front of these people?" More times than not, they elect not to cast the spell after all because they realize that such an action might generate an undesired negative response. Seems to me the players understand this quite clearly.

[Alexander_Damocles]

Jiggy, I'm largely with you. My question is about the NPC guard. How does he know if you are casting a charm spell or a more mundane spell (light, etc)? Wouldn't that require a successful spellcraft check? Without a check, he has no way to know if you're acting with hostile intent. That to me is the crux of the problem: how do people react to an unknown person casting an unknown spell. And I don't really have a good answer, honestly.

[Jiggy]

I addressed that in my post, Alexander.

[trollbill]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Jiggy, I'm largely with you. My question is about the NPC guard. How does he know if you are casting a charm spell or a more mundane spell (light, etc)? Wouldn't that require a successful spellcraft check? Without a check, he has no way to know if you're acting with hostile intent. That to me is the crux of the problem: how do people react to an unknown person casting an unknown spell. And I don't really have a good answer, honestly.

Sensing hostile intent is a Sense Motive check, not a Spellcraft check. But a successful Spellcraft check would likely add a good deal of bonuses to that Sense Motive check.

[Alexander_Damocles]

I don't quite see it. Are you saying the sense motive is against a bluff role of some sort?

I swear I'm not trying to be dense, but 5 essays in a day and 3 hours of sleep makes Damocles a little less wise than normal...

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

trollbill wrote:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Jiggy, I'm largely with you. My question is about the NPC guard. How does he know if you are casting a charm spell or a more mundane spell (light, etc)? Wouldn't that require a successful spellcraft check? Without a check, he has no way to know if you're acting with hostile intent. That to me is the crux of the problem: how do people react to an unknown person casting an unknown spell. And I don't really have a good answer, honestly.

Sensing hostile intent is a Sense Motive check, not a Spellcraft check. But a successful Spellcraft check would likely add a good deal of bonuses to that Sense Motive check.

Well if he makes the spellcraft check and realizes its a fireball, likely a sense motive check becomes unnecessary.

[trollbill]

Andrew Christian wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Jiggy, I'm largely with you. My question is about the NPC guard. How does he know if you are casting a charm spell or a more mundane spell (light, etc)? Wouldn't that require a successful spellcraft check? Without a check, he has no way to know if you're acting with hostile intent. That to me is the crux of the problem: how do people react to an unknown person casting an unknown spell. And I don't really have a good answer, honestly.

Sensing hostile intent is a Sense Motive check, not a Spellcraft check. But a successful Spellcraft check would likely add a good deal of bonuses to that Sense Motive check.

Well if he makes the spellcraft check and realizes its a fireball, likely a sense motive check becomes unnecessary.

I will not argue that.

[Jiggy]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I don't quite see it. Are you saying the sense motive is against a bluff role of some sort?

I swear I'm not trying to be dense, but 5 essays in a day and 3 hours of sleep makes Damocles a little less wise than normal...

Under the first bolded heading, third paragraph. A guard who sees you as potentially wanting something he can't let you have is going to react to spellcasting before he knows what it is, because it's his job to be ready.

[trollbill]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I don't quite see it. Are you saying the sense motive is against a bluff role of some sort?

I swear I'm not trying to be dense, but 5 essays in a day and 3 hours of sleep makes Damocles a little less wise than normal...

I realize game-wise that Sense Motive is usually used against an opposed Bluff check, but there is no reason to suppose that just because you aren't Bluffing that people automatically know you are telling the truth. Sense Motive is just that. Sensing the motives of an individual to determine intent.

[Arkos]

Have we begun arguing that Sense Motive, a skill that can even be used by the untrained and woefully wisdom-deprived, can be used to determine if a spell being cast is hostile or non-hostile based on scrutinizing the intentions of the caster? BECAUSE I CAN GET BEHIND THAT.

[trollbill]

Arkos wrote:

Have we begun arguing that Sense Motive, a skill that can even be used by the untrained and woefully wisdom-deprived, can be used to determine if a spell being cast is hostile or non-hostile based on scrutinizing the intentions of the caster? BECAUSE I CAN GET BEHIND THAT.

I would certainly agree with that. I think the question here is more how people will respond when they both fail to understand if your actions are either hostile or non-hostile, and they don't know what spell you are casting.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Arkos wrote:

Have we begun arguing that Sense Motive, a skill that can even be used by the untrained and woefully wisdom-deprived, can be used to determine if a spell being cast is hostile or non-hostile based on scrutinizing the intentions of the caster? BECAUSE I CAN GET BEHIND THAT.

Sure. And if the NPC can't tell, then hostility may still be an option.

[Jiggy]

Hm, LazarX hasn't commented in a while.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jiggy wrote:

Heh, I just had a thought: a few individuals' comments in this thread start to seem pretty silly when you consider that there's an entire scenario devoted to trying to convince intelligent people that demons spewing out of the Worldwound really are a threat worth reacting to.

"I understand your concern, but I don't think that the possibility of demons decimating half the globe is really worth my attent— HOLY SH** THAT GUY OVER THERE IS CASTING A SPELL!!!"

No one needs convincing that they're a threat, they need convincing that the threat half a world a way is going to be a threat to them AND that they should be the ones to do anything about it.

Happens constantly.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jiggy wrote:

I disagree with your implied assertion that players' metagamey behavior should be used as a framework for determining NPCs' behavior.

I disagree with your implied assertion that that's meta-gaming.

[Alexander_Damocles]

I see that part, Jiggy. What I'm trying to figure out is how they discern if it is a hostile action. The section you pointed me to has the guards already believing that the spell in question is non-hostile.

Really liking the dialog going on here. Pleasantly productive!

[Jiggy]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

The section you pointed me to has the guards already believing that the spell in question is non-hostile.

No, it has the guards as an example of someone who would be less likely to presume the spell was non-hostile. That is, I stated that when a PC casts a spell in a non-hostile manner, folks won't react until they see what the spell does unless they have a specific reason to do so, such as being unfriendly or being a guard in the PC's path. Follow now?

[trollbill]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I see that part, Jiggy. What I'm trying to figure out is how they discern if it is a hostile action. The section you pointed me to has the guards already believing that the spell in question is non-hostile.

Really liking the dialog going on here. Pleasantly productive!

According to the rules, it is a DC 20 Sense Motive check to determine if someone is trustworthy who isn't deliberately trying to bluff you.

[Ryan Blomquist]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I see that part, Jiggy. What I'm trying to figure out is how they discern if it is a hostile action. The section you pointed me to has the guards already believing that the spell in question is non-hostile.

Really liking the dialog going on here. Pleasantly productive!

From reading Jiggy's post, my guess is they're using their Spellcraft skill if they possess it and if not they're using the Sense Motive skill to get a "hunch" about the situation; failing that, it sounds like they're letting the spell happen unless there's a clear bead of fire or some other obvious, visible indicator of hostilities. Jiggy - am I close?

[BigNorseWolf]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I see that part, Jiggy. What I'm trying to figure out is how they discern if it is a hostile action. The section you pointed me to has the guards already believing that the spell in question is non-hostile.

The funny thing is... there's no mechanic for telling the truth. "Dear Gozreh, bless this bounty which we are about to rec FIREBALL TO THE FACE!" is a bluff vs. sense motive check for a surprise round but how do you determine if they actually ARE casting purify food and drink without spellcraft? (which my druid does at EVERY meal ever since he woke up in a cult...)

I just assume that the target of the spell is more or less visible by who's being pointed at with the somatic gestures. Casting enhance diplomacy or guidance on yourself right in front of someone would be like perfuming or applying powder right there, a little gauche probably but not rude enough to incur a penalty. Casting a spell at someone (or in their direction) probably results in someone hitting the deck

The setting really hasn't gone whole hog deconstructing the social ramifications of magic. Stores would have signs saying "clerk cannot access the lemonds tiny chest containing more than 20 gold pieces", or a special roped off area or shooting range where you can face away from the counter and cast detect magic without the clerk trying to crossbow you in the face, anti teleportation bank vaults, etc.

Since the setting isn't that worried that we're all playing a game then neither am I. I might drop a warning about spellcasting at the fancy dinner party, but unless the players are trying to get the drop on charming or fireballing someone I don't usually see the need to make it an issue.

[Jiggy]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The funny thing is... there's no mechanic for telling the truth.

Core Rulebook, Skills chapter, Sense Motive wrote:

Task | Sense Motive DC
Hunch | 20

....

Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong, such as when you're talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.

(Bolding mine.)