Socially acceptable use of magic in PFS social settings?


Pathfinder Society

601 to 637 of 637 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

N N 959 wrote:
trollbill wrote:
I am trying hard not to be pedantic, but it seems you want to be so: You used the words "fist" and "raised hand" which both imply aggressive meaning.
No, fist and raised hand do not imply an aggressive intent.

Then why did you choose the word "fist" instead of just say "hand" if there is no implied intent behind that word?

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Two more parts from Winter Witch

P169 "And to their mind, there was only one way to deal with a witch - as Ellasuf had learned to her everlasting grief when they dragged Liv to the river and cast her into the icy water."

P187/188 "Even the young women who had once greeted him flirtatiously now cast their glances from a distance. They were more curious than ever, but now they were also a little frightened of him. Knowing a man could cast spells was different to seeing him do it, and Declan suspected the Varisians were equally attracted to and wary of wizards."

The first is an extreme reaction to magic. Killing off their own members showing magical potential. We are talking some Ulfen settlement close to the border of Irrisien - used to raids from the winter witches.
A spellcaster visiting them surely won't be killed outright - but expect that any magic cast while in the settlement would be regarded as suspicious and if aimed at someone might cause an attack instead of giving you the doubt.

The second one is a more interesting one. Declan just saved the whole caravan with his magic - he is trusted and liked - still - after casting powerful magic he suddenly is shunned.

I don't want to make generalizations. But reading campaign settings and tales help me to immerse myself into Golarion and at least get an idea how I think the world looks like. This is all sold by Paizo - so while assuming artistic freedom - it should be not detrimental how Paizo as a company sees the setting.

I'm retreading the book now and will get into Whitethrone in the next one or two days and surely will post another view on magic again.

1/5

trollbill wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
trollbill wrote:
I am trying hard not to be pedantic, but it seems you want to be so: You used the words "fist" and "raised hand" which both imply aggressive meaning.
No, fist and raised hand do not imply an aggressive intent.
Then why did you choose the word "fist" instead of just say "hand" if there is no implied intent behind that word?
Merriam-Webster wrote:
: the hand clenched with the fingers doubled into the palm and the thumb doubled inward across the fingers

Nothing in the definition indicates any intent. Why did I choose a fist? Because it illustrates the point. Someone who makes a fist could punch you in the face and possibly kill you with one blow or they could be celebrating something they just heard someone say. But when you bring out a bona fide weapon, a weapon only has one function. It is NOT analogous to spell casting.

Every time you see someone form a first or drive down the street in their car, you don't become concerned for your safety and well being. Why? Because their are laws/mores which govern the actions of civilized beings. These mores function in hamlets as well as large cities. You don't go around blasting people without consequences. Even orcs and goblins abide by this.

Nobody has explained why magic use would be immune to this social reality. In order to get around it, people insist on trying to parallel spell casting to drawing weapons. That comparison is not valid when a spell like Prestidigitation would not be uncommon at societal functions and public venues.

Dark Archive 4/5

As a reference point for what folks might see or use in their everyday lives I reviewed the cantrips. Of the 30 cantrips I have found, only 8 are potentially hostile (to people). Only 4 of them have no obvious non-combat use. Only one of them seems to be always hostile though you aren't in a social situation when you use that one.

Practical Cantrips (to everyday folk):
Breeze - keeping cool in summer
Dancing Lights - free light source (with no material components)
Detect Poison - gathering food in the countryside, detecting if old or damaged food is safe to eat, detecting if an insect is dangerous
Drench - shower, cooling down, putting out small fires
Light - free longer lasting light source (which requires a material component)
Mage Hand - working with hot/cold/dangerous objects
Mending - free repairs to possessions
Open/Close - open otherwise difficult to open items
Penumbra - sunblock/shade
Prestidigitation - lots of things, keeping clean, flavoring food, warming food, chilling beer, hair dye
Root - walk across slippery and uneven surfaces (stepping stones, ice)
Scoop - gathering things up easily, handling dangerous liquids
Scriveners chant – photocopier for text
Spark - light a fire

Other non-hostile (to people) cantrips:
Arcane Mark
Detect Magic
Read Magic
Disrupt undead – though hostile in Ustalav and to Dhampirs
Ghost Sound
Haunted Fey Aspect
Message - has zero duration if you can’t cast higher level spells
Resistance

Potentially hostile cantrips (with practical uses):
Acid splash - killing vermin, catching lunch
Bleed – just nasty (though you are unconscious when this is cast on you - not a social situation)
Daze – not damaging, but no obvious everyday use
Flare – not damaging, but no obvious everyday use
Jolt - killing vermin, catching lunch
Ray of frost - preserving food, killing vermin, catching lunch
Sotto Voice - not damaging, but no obvious everyday use
Touch of fatigue - making a farm animal more docile for handling

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

N N 959 wrote:
trollbill wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
trollbill wrote:
I am trying hard not to be pedantic, but it seems you want to be so: You used the words "fist" and "raised hand" which both imply aggressive meaning.
No, fist and raised hand do not imply an aggressive intent.
Then why did you choose the word "fist" instead of just say "hand" if there is no implied intent behind that word?
Merriam-Webster wrote:
: the hand clenched with the fingers doubled into the palm and the thumb doubled inward across the fingers
Nothing in the definition indicates any intent.

*sigh*

Maybe you should have read a little further:

Merriam-Webster wrote:


Examples of FIST

  • He pounded his fist on the table in anger.

  • She pounded on the door with both fists.

  • He defiantly shook his fist at the policeman.
  • Three examples of use of the word fist (and only 3) and not a single one uses fist in a non-aggressive context and yet the word fist somehow has no implied intent of aggression to it. Obviously the guy who wrote the dictionary examples thought it had an implied intent of aggression. And if nothing else, Merriam-Webster's examples are giving it that implied intent.

    The Exchange 5/5

    ZomB - I do not understand your comment on Message

    "Message - has zero duration if you can’t cast higher level spells"

    ??

    Message
    School transmutation [language-dependent]; Level bard 0, sorcerer/wizard 0
    Casting Time 1 standard action
    Components V, S, F (a piece of copper wire)
    Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
    Targets one creature/level
    Duration 10 min./level
    Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

    OH! and thanks for the spell list! It was enlightening... (now I have to go find a source for drench & root)

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

    N N 959 wrote:
    Nobody has explained why magic use would be immune to this social reality.

    It would not be immune but it might be limited by society and the law's ability to actually enforce it due to its raw power level.

    Quote:
    In order to get around it, people insist on trying to parallel spell casting to drawing weapons.

    People have made other comparisons, like the 6-button box or the mixing chemicals example I mention, but you have chosen to ignore those.

    Quote:
    That comparison is not valid when a spell like Prestidigitation would not be uncommon at societal functions and public venues.

    It would only be uncommon at a societal function or public venue if spell-casting in general is not uncommon in those situations. I am not sure we have established that base-line yet. And when I say this, note that commonality of spell casting and commonality of casting spells in public are not the same thing. There are many things in our society that are common that are not commonly done in public.

    1/5

    trollbill wrote:

    Three examples of use of the word fist (and only 3) and not a single one uses fist in a non-aggressive context and yet the word fist somehow has no implied intent of aggression to it. Obviously the guy who wrote the dictionary examples thought it had an implied intent of aggression. And if nothing else, Merriam-Webster's examples are giving it that implied intent.

    I think we got off track here. A hand is like spell because it can kill people in the form of a fist or it can clean food off a lap. But every time someone forms a fist or raises a hand in a sports bar, people don't assume they are going to get punched or slapped. You pull out a gun in a sports bar and you'll be asked to leave. Comparing the casting of a spell to that of pulling a gun in a social setting is an invalid comparison.

    Nothing you've said or posted changes the invalidity of that comparison.

    1/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    trollbill wrote:
    It would only be uncommon at a societal function or public venue if spell-casting in general is not uncommon in those situations. I am not sure we have established that base-line yet.

    John Compton already established that magic use "is a fairly common feature of the world."

    Quote:
    And when I say this, note that commonality of spell casting and commonality of casting spells in public are not the same thing. There are many things in our society that are common that are not commonly done in public.

    Agreed, so now you've got the burden of proof as to why spells that would have tremendous utility in social settings aren't being commonly used by those who can cast them.

    Claiming that spell use is comparable to pulling a weapon is an invalid comparison. What else have you got?

    1/5

    trollbill wrote:

    People have made other comparisons, like the 6-button box or the mixing chemicals example I mention, but you have chosen to ignore those.

    Such an example isn't useful or helpful. Mainly because the scope of its functions do not approximate the usefulness and utility of various cantrips or low level spells. If the buttons were:

    1. Clean stains off clothes
    2. Season food
    3. Heat or Cool drinks
    4. Disinfect Food
    5. Provide light
    6. Locate Objects
    7. Text someone in the room (Version 2.0)
    8. <insert harmful spells here>

    Then you'd have a better example.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

    N N 959 wrote:
    trollbill wrote:

    Three examples of use of the word fist (and only 3) and not a single one uses fist in a non-aggressive context and yet the word fist somehow has no implied intent of aggression to it. Obviously the guy who wrote the dictionary examples thought it had an implied intent of aggression. And if nothing else, Merriam-Webster's examples are giving it that implied intent.

    I think we got off track here. A hand is like spell because it can kill people in the form of a fist or it can clean food off a lap. But every time someone forms a fist or raises a hand in a sports bar, people don't assume they are going to get punched or slapped. You pull out a gun in a sports bar and you'll be asked to leave. Comparing the casting of a spell to that of pulling a gun in a social setting is an invalid comparison.

    Nothing you've said or posted changes the invalidity of that comparison.

    Yes, I certainly agree we have gotten off track with pedantic arguments about semantics.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

    N N 959 wrote:
    trollbill wrote:

    People have made other comparisons, like the 6-button box or the mixing chemicals example I mention, but you have chosen to ignore those.

    Such an example isn't useful or helpful. Mainly because the scope of its functions do not approximate the usefulness and utility of various cantrips or low level spells. If the buttons were:

    1. Clean stains off clothes
    2. Season food
    3. Heat or Cool drinks
    4. Disinfect Food
    5. Provide light
    6. Locate Objects
    7. Text someone in the room (Version 2.0)
    8. <insert harmful spells here>

    Then you'd have a better example.

    Um...okay...so why don't you address the better example you just gave?

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

    N N 959 wrote:
    trollbill wrote:
    It would only be uncommon at a societal function or public venue if spell-casting in general is not uncommon in those situations. I am not sure we have established that base-line yet.

    John Compton already established that magic use "is a fairly common feature of the world."

    Quote:
    And when I say this, note that commonality of spell casting and commonality of casting spells in public are not the same thing. There are many things in our society that are common that are not commonly done in public.

    Agreed, so now you've got the burden of proof as to why spells that would have tremendous utility in social settings aren't being commonly used by those who can cast them.

    Claiming that spell use is comparable to pulling a weapon is an invalid comparison. What else have you got?

    Well, let's go back to the mixing chemicals comparison then. Mixing chemicals is something that is common in our society but it is not something we commonly do in public. While there are practical reasons for this, such as you get better results in a controlled environment and sometimes you need special equipment, there are also social reasons as mixing chemicals can have obnoxious or even lethal results and while the untrained layman knows mixing chemicals can have both good and bad results, he likely doesn't know the which one you are going for if you don't at least make some kind of announcement first.

    Thus I would contend that if public spell casting is okay, then it would normally be considered socially appropriate to make everyone aware of what it was you were doing if it wasn't obvious. If you recall, much of the argument has centered on how people would react if you just started casting a spell in public without any sort of preamble. I am saying their reaction would be negative (though not necessarily hostile) under these conditions because of this.

    1/5

    trollbill wrote:

    Um...okay...so why don't you address the better example you just gave?

    It's difficult to know. The closest thing, imo, to your box analogy is a car. Incredibly useful, incredibly dangerous. Even in countries with essentially no traffic enforcement, cars are used and an accepted part of society.

    But even my car analogy falls short in social settings. No one can pull a car out and use it a dinner party. So in our reality, we've never really dealt with anything comparable to magic.

    Dark Archive 4/5

    nosig wrote:

    ZomB - I do not understand your comment on Message

    "Message - has zero duration if you can’t cast higher level spells"

    ??

    I was thinking back to the old wizards apprentice back-story where you learn cantrips as an apprentice while training to be a wizard. A zeroth level caster, though not sure that concept exists anywhere in the game rules.

    Quote:
    (now I have to go find a source for drench & root)

    Blog.

    I find the spells DB spreadsheet from PFSRD is the easiest way to bulk analyse spells. I should have downloaded a new copy as there is another non-combat cantrip in there now: Chameleon Scales (change your skin/hide/scales color; from the Kobold book)

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    N N 959 wrote:
     That comparison is not valid when a spell like Prestidigitation would not be uncommon at societal functions and public venues.

    Your argument is based on a faulty premise, that spellcasting is "common." It certainly may appear that way from an adventurer's point of view, but the majority of Golarion's people are not adventurers and are not wealthy enough to afford spellcasting services or magic items. Aside from a post by John that seems to indicate otherwise, the setting material only claims that magic is common enough to be misunderstood and feared by the average person.

    So please, when making arguments based on the commonality of magic, please try to remember the context. "Common" among Pathfinders and other adventurers is nothing more than selection bias.

    Sczarni 4/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

    I like the mixing chemicals example. Everyone is familiar with the concept of chemistry, but not very many people know how to perform it (aside from obvious uses like food preparation). It can produce very beneficial results like medicines or cleaners, or very deadly results like poisons or explosives.

    If you were walking down the street and someone suddenly pulled out a bunch of vials and started mixing chemicals, you'd probably think it was pretty strange, and might even get scared -- even if all the person was doing was mixing up a nice air freshener.

    As many others have mentioned above, intent has a lot to do with how people would react. Did the person stop, sniff the air, and grimace? Did he give a death glare to someone who cut him off in traffic? Did he run over, concerned, to someone who tripped and fell and offer to help with that scraped knee?

    As with any social situation, the reactions you get will depend on your attitude and that of the people around you.

    1/5

    Mystic Lemur wrote:

    Your argument is based on a faulty premise, that spellcasting is "common." It certainly may appear that way from an adventurer's point of view, but the majority of Golarion's people are not adventurers and are not wealthy enough to afford spellcasting services or magic items. Aside from a post by John that seems to indicate otherwise, the setting material only claims that magic is common enough to be misunderstood and feared by the average person.

    So please, when making arguments based on the commonality of magic, please try to remember the context. "Common" among Pathfinders and other adventurers is nothing more than selection bias.

    Let's take another look at John's quote

    John Compton wrote:
    Spellcasting is something that most anyone has a chance of intuitively recognizing if not identifying, as you're right--it is a fairly common feature of the world.

    Emphasis mine.

    So not only is magic use a fairly common feature "of the world." It's something that "most anyone" could recognize. There's no "adventurer's point of view" qualification. You're just making that up so you can try and discount John's statement.

    Since the authors of said material were not writing in the context of PFS-OP and John is, what the PFS staff says about the world of PFS supercedes any random reference in a book.

    So no, my premise isn't faulty.

    The Exchange 5/5

    what we have here is clashing view points of the campaign setting.

    Some posters view magic use one way (common usage - lots of people know how magic works). Others view it differently (Unusual, almost never seen, and greatly feared).

    I'm very much NOT in the (Unusual, almost never seen, and greatly feared) camp, and so may be overstating it.

    I view magic as the Tech of the game. A serf on a farm is central Cheliax may view it differently than a silk merchant in downtown Absolam.

    (IMHO) both know magic does things they do not understand. Both might have seen or heard somethings. If a person reaches into a cloth bag and pulls out what appears to be a flaming torch... will they run from the room to get a farm tool and attack the torch holder? Most likely they will chuckle and say "Ah heared about that kind of thing! It just looks like a flame right? Hay, can I see that a minute?" and hold the torch and 'feel' the flame and be delighted.

    Now - if we as Judges teach our players that the reaction to the use of magic is fear and aggression... our players (and they become judges later) will come to expect that.

    I kind of hoped that this thread was a start at changing that reaction from the people I play with to be more uniform. You know, I can play with it either way... I just would like us all to be doing it the same way (and I'd kind of like it to be closer to the way I see it... ;).

    Liberty's Edge 5/5

    Fairly common feature and the passage from ISWG of looking on magic with "wonder, fear, and awe" are not mutually exclusive.

    I'm an American football fanatic. I love the game. Everything about it. I watch the draft, compete in two to three fantasy leagues every year. I know the obscure and archaic rules of the game pretty well.

    And yet, I'm in awe of some of these athletic freaks that play the game. I also have some fear for tge tremendous hits and chronic punishment their bodies endure.

    If a football player got down in a lineman's stance directed at me, you bet I'm rolling my sense motive check to see if he's just demonstrating or wants to include me in a demonstration. I don't fancy being snapped in two by a guy twice my size and three to four times my strength. I would experience that moment with a bit of trepidation and anxiety.

    Yet, logically, I know this guy is not likely to randomly hurt me.

    I imagine the fairly commonness of magic in Golarion coupled with a general fear, awe and wonder would look similar. Except in this fantasy world, it is less likely, espessially in PFS where murder-hobo is the typical modus operandi, that morals would stop seemingly random magical violence from happening.

    As such, the run in fear or hide actions are going to be more prevalent in Golarion than a nervous chuckle (my likely response to the NFL player example above). And the ratio of more than a commoner of the NPC is directly proportional to the likelihood of a violent response vs a run in fear or hide response.

    1/5

    nosig wrote:
    I kind of hoped that this thread was a start at changing that reaction from the people I play with to be more uniform. You know, I can play with it either way... I just would like us all to be doing it the same way ...

    This is exactly why I started this thread. I really don't care what the campaign setting is, I just want it to be uniform. I say that as GM and a player (as I generally don't play primary casters).

    If magic use is acceptable, fine. If magic use is not acceptable, fine. Let's just all play in the same Golarion.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Ok, if magic is common then it should excite almost no notice.

    So, when a group of adventurers walk down the street, what to the townsfolk notice?

    PC 1: A Tiefling rogue dressed in eastern armor light weapons.

    PC 2: A Gnome Druid, in armor of hides, riding a Tiger.

    PC 3: A human Wizard, in robes - with an Ioun stone circling his head.

    PC 4: A Dwarven Fighter, in full plate with a glave in hand and a crossbow on his back.

    PC 5: A Half-Elven Bard, in flashy clothing and carrying a lute.

    NOW... one of these persons stops in the middle of the street, raises his right hand, waves it around and says something in an unknow language...

    What kind of a reaction does he get? it kind of depends on the judge... and right now has much less to do with the campaign, the setting, or even (it seems to me) the PC. Some judges have the townsfolk flee, returning with torchs and pitchforks to punish the PC...

    Why? Why such a reaction to the use of spells in public?

    AND NO REACTION to the Tiefling, the Tiger, or the Weapons (& Armor) carried in public?

    Scarab Sages 5/5

    N N 959 wrote:
    nosig wrote:
    I kind of hoped that this thread was a start at changing that reaction from the people I play with to be more uniform. You know, I can play with it either way... I just would like us all to be doing it the same way ...

    This is exactly why I started this thread. I really don't care what the campaign setting is, I just want it to be uniform. I say that as GM and a player (as I generally don't play primary casters).

    If magic use is acceptable, fine. If magic use is not acceptable, fine. Let's just all play in the same Golarion.

    At the start of each game, I cast Unseen Servant, as I feel a lady of my class should have a servant to fetch and carry for her.

    My outfit (clothing) contains an item that has Continual Flame cast on it, and I point out that I am trying to push this spell as a "fashion statement" - I've posted a thread to that effect sometime ago, and gotten good responses. ("hay, it's a hot outfit!").

    I use a number of cantrips often - esp. Prestiditation, during the corse of talking (diplomacy) to NPCs ("Cookie?" hand wave, produce small sweet lump...).

    The more we (as Players) use non-combat spells available to us, the more people (other players and judges, NOT NPCs) will view magic as being part of the Campaign setting and not something to react with aggression to.

    4/5 5/55/5 **

    Why is there a light shining from her chest?.. Kill her!!!

    Scarab Sages 5/5

    BubbaBugbear wrote:
    Why is there a light shining from her chest?.. Kill her!!!

    the usual reaction is "The poor girl is on fire!" then they throw beer on me.

    Leads to Wet T-Shirts....

    ;)

    (this is also why it's actually on my Mistmail - but then I have Judge Veriation with the question of "is the mist flaming?". )

    Silver Crusade 4/5 5/5

    N N 959 wrote:

    With the social gathering becoming more common environment for PFS scenarios, I'd like to hear from John Compton about what are the conventions with regards to the use of spells/magic/abilities/animals in these events.

    Let me narrow down the discussion. Gary Gygax placed D&D in medieval Europe. Originally, there were no cantrips, orisons, animal companions, or proliferation of magic that exists in Golarion. Magic Users did not gain spells with each level nor could one walk into K-Magic Mart and buy the +1 sword on a whim.

    Golarian is drowning in magic by comparison to D&D when it began. Yet, the scenarios don't seem to reflect any social change or paradigm shifts that would naturally result when you have an Adept capable of casting Create Water...continuously.

    Nor is there any fluff given to addressing the numerous methods that exist to detect efforts to deceive and disguise identity. Not once has my Pathfinder been subject to a Zone of Truth or True Seeing to confirm his identity or honesty. I was amazed that a Season 5 scenario actually subjected PC's to a Detect Evil before letting them in a secured location. Bravo.

    Here are my specific concerns/questions:

    1. In social environment, what level of spell use would be common?

    2. With so many classes getting animal companions and familiars, how does the world view these creatures?

    3. In commercial environments, what level of fraud detection would be common? How common is it for both sides to scan each other before agreeing to do business?

    Any basic sociological examination of Golarian vs the magic that is readily accessible screams disconnect. I find it implausible that someone would be offended by Guidance being cast in a discussion when the person offended has no idea what was cast.

    D&D is drowning in magic items compared to D&D when it began...what was your question again? To be honest with you I've yet to get a +5 Vorpal Sword in PFS, or a sphere of annihilation, or even a +3 Frostbrand. The iPhone is drowning in apps compared to the weighted box of a phone back in 1991; why is that? It is because as more things become more pervasive, viewpoints of a larger sample size create a more accurate deviation or standard, which in turn pursaudes change. Furthermore, since the addition of skills, sense motive appears to be the standard norm for detecting falsehoods of most sorts.

    Now I'll try to answer your specific questions with specific answers.

    1. Depends on what region your in. Some regions magic isn't/can't be used as well as some divine magic.

    2. How are pets viewed in our own world? Once things become status quo well, they become status quo. I personnally don't pay much attention to the dog happily following it's master through the park or chasing a stick but when I see that junk yard dawg rushing towards me with foam frothing from his mouth, I run! I expect that the bear happily waddling along behind the Ranger is viewed exactly in the same manner.

    3. Everyone has sense motive. Everyone uses it passively without a second thought. Some more distrusting souls however, have it at a higher degree and use it actively. However, the only way to answer this question with some degree of accuracy you'll need to create a questionnaire and pass it out to a large enough sample size.

    I'm a little offended when I'm in a discussion with two people that speak English and during the conversation they speak to one another a few times in a language I don't understand. Magic would be very similar, if I don't understand what was cast I might 'actively' check my sense motive. I've attempted a sociological examination of Golarion with some of my characters a few times but always seemed to have trouble finding that skill, profession, or knowledge. Oh well, I still have sense motive.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    N N 959 wrote:
    Mystic Lemur wrote:

    Your argument is based on a faulty premise, that spellcasting is "common." It certainly may appear that way from an adventurer's point of view, but the majority of Golarion's people are not adventurers and are not wealthy enough to afford spellcasting services or magic items. Aside from a post by John that seems to indicate otherwise, the setting material only claims that magic is common enough to be misunderstood and feared by the average person.

    So please, when making arguments based on the commonality of magic, please try to remember the context. "Common" among Pathfinders and other adventurers is nothing more than selection bias.

    Let's take another look at John's quote

    John Compton wrote:
    Spellcasting is something that most anyone has a chance of intuitively recognizing if not identifying, as you're right--it is a fairly common feature of the world.

    Emphasis mine.

    So not only is magic use a fairly common feature "of the world." It's something that "most anyone" could recognize. There's no "adventurer's point of view" qualification. You're just making that up so you can try and discount John's statement.

    Since the authors of said material were not writing in the context of PFS-OP and John is, what the PFS staff says about the world of PFS supercedes any random reference in a book.

    So no, my premise isn't faulty.

    The only thing it really proves is that the Paizo creative staff are not one piece when it comes to their views on Golarion. That interpretation of the Compton statement does not jive well with the Golarion depicted by the various novels and much of the setting material itself. Golarion is certainly not a fantasy version of the 21st century, or even the 18th. Magic is definitely much less integrated into the common lifestyle than it would be on Eberron.

    I'm not surprised that there would be discontinuity. Getting a whole bunch of creative types to sing a common tune is akin to herding cats. It's seldom even close to 100 percent successful.


    I can't blame the townsfolk for being a bit superstitious about magic. Magic is equally beneficial as it is harmful. For every cure light wounds or purify food and drink spell, there is a inflict light wounds and putrefy food and drink spell. Then you get the madmen and madwomen who are making deals with beings from different planes of existence that are not nice or peaceful. A good deal of the threats that adventurers must face were made by various wizards like the Bulette or Land Shark as it is also known as.

    1/5

    LazarX wrote:
    The only thing it really proves is that the Paizo creative staff are not one piece when it comes to their views on Golarion. That interpretation of the Compton statement does not jive well with the Golarion depicted by the various novels and much of the setting material itself.

    Actually John's statement doesn't "prove" that. What we should take away is that that different authors have different agendas. Even if they might all agree on what is plausible, that will give way to whatever setting suits the story they want to tell.

    PFS-OP requires a different Golarion than one in a novel or a home game. The treatment of different races is a perfect example. It would not surprise me if John agreed that tieflings should experience fear and prejudice in the nominal Golarion setting. But in PFS-OP, that doesn't really work so well. And let's not even go down the path of magic items always available in towns of 5k or more.

    What I care about is what makes sense for PFS-op. I don't care what people do in their home games or in AP's.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    N N 959 wrote:


    PFS-OP requires a different Golarion than one in a novel or a home game. The treatment of different races is a perfect example. It would not surprise me if John agreed that tieflings should experience fear and prejudice in the nominal Golarion setting. But in PFS-OP, that doesn't really work so well.

    I disagree. Why do we bother to have a setting to play in at all if we aren't going to make an effort to stay true to it? The Golarion we play in should be the same as that of the novels and the APs or it might as well be Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. And from a Organized Play point of view, it makes no sense to say XYZ isn't allowed because GOLARION but ABC about Golarion is brushed aside because ORGANIZED PLAY. It don't jive.

    Edit: Regarding my supposed misinterpretation of John's statement, I never claimed a commoner wouldn't recognize spellcasting. Everyone recognizes magic as magic, because magic is flashy and demands attention and cannot be disguised. I don't see that as meaning "Oh, it's just magic. It's probably a harmless cantrip." I see no contradiction between John's statement and the statement in the ISWG regarding fear and misunderstanding. It's a common enough part of Golarion to be recognized as something that is commonly feared and misunderstood.

    Grand Lodge 5/5

    N N 959 wrote:
    trollbill wrote:
    N N 959 wrote:
    trollbill wrote:
    I am trying hard not to be pedantic, but it seems you want to be so: You used the words "fist" and "raised hand" which both imply aggressive meaning.
    No, fist and raised hand do not imply an aggressive intent.
    Then why did you choose the word "fist" instead of just say "hand" if there is no implied intent behind that word?
    Merriam-Webster wrote:
    : the hand clenched with the fingers doubled into the palm and the thumb doubled inward across the fingers

    Nothing in the definition indicates any intent. Why did I choose a fist? Because it illustrates the point. Someone who makes a fist could punch you in the face and possibly kill you with one blow or they could be celebrating something they just heard someone say. But when you bring out a bona fide weapon, a weapon only has one function. It is NOT analogous to spell casting.

    Every time you see someone form a first or drive down the street in their car, you don't become concerned for your safety and well being. Why? Because their are laws/mores which govern the actions of civilized beings. These mores function in hamlets as well as large cities. You don't go around blasting people without consequences. Even orcs and goblins abide by this.

    Nobody has explained why magic use would be immune to this social reality. In order to get around it, people insist on trying to parallel spell casting to drawing weapons. That comparison is not valid when a spell like Prestidigitation would not be uncommon at societal functions and public venues.

    I use my nodachi to cut my steak all the time. Except when the host demands that my weapons be peace bonded.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Thread necro - wanted to float this to the top of the Society board and see if we can get some new discussion on it...

    Anything changed in 3 seasons?


    I would love more cultural briefing, including fashion briefings. I've just been sketching a character, and I have no idea what she should be wearing! If she had armour, I could work with that, but she doesn't, and so I have no idea. What is in fashion or not considered ridiculous by someone from originally from the Elven parts of the river kingdoms, who currently lives in Absalom?

    Come to that, what does publicly-performed music sound like? And what can she drink? Is there an Elven quarter where she can hang around in a dirty bar and knock back vicious absinthe until to try and forget things? If not, why not?

    Sczarni 5/5 * Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman

    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    Nothing has changed. Die Hard still one of the best Christmas Movies.

    4/5

    I've wondered before how acceptable it is to cast things like Eagle's Splendor and Honeyed Tongue in a negotiation, or to cast Heightened Awareness, Investigative Nind, or both when the scenario calls for impressing X NPC by making knowledge checks.

    Detect the Faithful is another spell I'm wondering if people might take issue with in social situations.


    RealAlchemy wrote:
    I've wondered before how acceptable it is to cast things like Eagle's Splendor and Honeyed Tongue in a negotiation,...

    Probably there are a variety of cultural responses. At the extremes, I'm imagining some cultures thinking that magic is just part of the negotiating tactics, while some insist that the only acceptable spell is Detect Magic, and anyone who pings for or casts anything else needs to leave the room. More pragmatically and with slightly less clear etiquette, I'm imagining casting being frowned on but effects not being monitored. That could lead to a lot of "bathroom breaks".

    Shadow Lodge

    Magic is a very diverse mechanic that can function like many things in the real world. I always think of it as volatile. Very very few understand it and those who do cannot truly explain how it works. Alchemy, the "science" of magic, is known in golarion primarily for bombs created by it which harness it with the precision of a rampaging elephant. Wizardry, the study of magic can define it by school, and outline what each school does, but trying to explain how leads to the glazed eyes of the commonfolk. Sorcery and Bardery(?), the art of magic, can explain it as well as an artist can explain inspiration, another artist or enthusiast understands and the rest politely nod to avoid offense.

    So trust probably varies as wide as the field of magic itself does. If I manage a low scale tavern in the sketchy parts of Absalom, I don't care if the wizard casts a spell, he's probably one of the uncharismatic types cooling his cheap beer with ray of frost, and probably isn't more dangerous than the guy juggling knives for his dayjob.

    If I am a rich and experienced trade prince dealing with a well renouned bars, I will be offended if he doesn't try magic to grease the wheels. I have money enough to protect from most harmful spells, and authority to arrest him, so am I not good enough to use one of his cantrips?

    If I am nobility hosting a dinner party, I expect the highest nobles to have abjurations, glamors, and other such things up before they enter. The richest man in town doesn't show up to a party without a bodyguard, or show up in his pajamas. He also shouldn't change in the bathroom or pull his guard's weapons for show though, so the spells should be precast.

    If I have a mundane job though, like farming, I disallow unexplained magic. In the seconds it takes to cast spark my entire livelihood could go from my most prosperous year yet, to crippling povery because of a madman casting spark to burn down my wheat fields or blow up the silo.

    601 to 637 of 637 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Socially acceptable use of magic in PFS social settings? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Pathfinder Society