How do you like your peasant magic?

[TheManicMonocle]

So I was thinking, do you think it's better for a fantasy magic world to have peasants with medieval technology, or peasants with magically enhanced medieval technology?

[JNAProductions]

So I was thinking, do you think it's better for a fantasy magic world to have peasants with medieval technology, or peasants with magically enhanced medieval technology?

Really depends on the setting. Eberron? Magitek. Forgotten Realms? Not so much.

My personal preference is a fair amount of small magics. For instance, most villages will have a hedge wizard of some kind, the kind of person who knows perhaps Mending and Light cantrips. Probably Prestidigitation too. Handy for fixing your wagon's wheel, and entertaining kids, but no good in a fight.

[Knaight]

There's not one best fantasy setting, and that pretty much renders the question unanswerable - neither is necessarily better than the other. There's also no need for a fantasy magic world to have either peasants or medieval technology at all.

[TheManicMonocle]

There's not one best fantasy setting, and that pretty much renders the question unanswerable - neither is necessarily better than the other. There's also no need for a fantasy magic world to have either peasants or medieval technology at all.

This is true, I suppose my actual question is, what's your preference and why?

[Drakevarg]

In my opinion, magic has to be strange and unusual or else it's not magic. Just weird, different science where the experts wear snuggies instead of labcoats. In which case, pretty much every educated character in the setting should have at least one level in wizard because academic understanding is literally all it takes to do wizard stuff.

So in regards to peasants, I think my usual interpretation is that most of them have seen something unusual in the woods once or twice, or something in the creepy old house, but someone right in front of them throwing around laser beams? Weird as heck. Magic items are bizarre SCP-like objects or family heirlooms with long histories behind them, not something used as a convenience tool.

[Frozen_Feet]

Peasants in my game worlds rarely have any real supernatural power. However, the social and technological state of things is closer to tail end of Early Modern period, rather than Medieval.

When peasants have "magic", it's of the "circle of salt wards off evil spirits" sort - a combination of superstition and use of talismans and natural materials against perceived supernatural threats. Some of these defenses are warranted, others less so. There are plenty of other weird beliefs and superstitions ("if you roll naked in rye during midsummer, you will see your future spouse!"), but those are nonsense. (People in real life have always been fond of nonsense and I see no reason for my fictional peoples to differ.)

[Necroticplague]

I prefer the idea that PCs and their primary enemies are heroic everyman, not special once-in-blue moon people. The villians should just be relatively common people driven by relatable motives, and the heroes are simply 'the people who decided to do something about it'.

So, I prefer magic to be just as common for most people as for PCs. So if the PCs can reliably expect to find incrementally more enchanted versions of swords and armor, then there is presumably, if offscreen, equivalents for more domestic goods. There's a range of various +X plows capable of helping till through harder dirt, minor objects of useful home comforts, and some moderately priced magical appliances of similar nature to the PCs various utility items (i.e, the Faucet of Endless Water, the Oven of Endure Elements)

I'm also a large fan of ludonarrative harmony in TTRPs; the idea that the mechanics of the game actually inform you about the world the mechanics are simulating. So if the mechanics and the written setting clash with each other, I just make my own more in line with the mechanics. If the PCs level of magic indicates a setting that wouldn't have peasants, then I just assume there aren't any. If the mechanics indicate it's not hard for everybody to live in concentrated cities of practically first-world standards, I see nothing wrong assuming they do, what's already written be darned.

[Anymage]

Assuming you're talking about being able to make up a setting and not having to care about what rules are attached to it, I'd prefer if low level magics were not horribly uncommon (the peasants wouldn't personally have any magic, but the town priest could perform a fertility ceremony over the fields). High power magic would become significantly rarer and more costly as the power improved.

What'd make this ideal setting fundamentally incompatible with D&D, aside from the part where vancian slots can be refilled cheaply and easily, would be how the definitions of "high power magic" would be different. Making an item that does its job better, like blessing a sword or a a field, should be easy and relatively cheap. Time and cost would still be factors, though. In addition to power, you'd have unnaturalness and thematic inconsistency; blessing a road so that travel is faster along it would be relatively easy. An airship would be harder. Teleport gates would be an epic magical undertaking beyond all but legendary magical powers. Great magical works would be collective undertakings by nature. Issues of cost and time would limit what one guy could pull out of his hat at a moment's notice.

[Knaight]

This is true, I suppose my actual question is, what's your preference and why?

Between the two I'm more likely to like the sort of fantasy that has peasants with medieval tools, although moving away from that is more likely to catch my attention - I'll happily read something based on actual medieval Europe, but the generic fantasyland based on distinctly muddy understandings of England and France is a setting that I've grown really tired of. Dropping the medieval tools and bringing in other eras or sufficiently distant places to have major technological differences, and likely altering the social dynamics to preclude peasants qua peasants is where the fantasy settings most likely to interest me reside.

[Mastikator]

Magic should be impractically expensive. If you want technology then just add technology, no need to add magitek for things that can be more easily and cheaply done with mundane means. (because for me it is immersion breaking)

[Nifft]

So I was thinking, do you think it's better for a fantasy magic world to have peasants with medieval technology, or peasants with magically enhanced medieval technology?

I like when things are plausible.

In a D&D world, for example, it's very difficult to reconcile the extreme threat levels posed by monsters in the wilderness with anything resembling historical farm practices.

So, if you're talking about peasants in a game like D&D, I'd always be on the side of magic.


Whose magic, though? Probably not the peasants themselves, because if they had their own magic, they would tend to stop being peasants.

That means it's usually an outside force of some kind.


If I'm feeling creative, then each village or region will have a different outside force.

Maybe the three heartland valleys will be supported by the Royal Druidic Council of Agriculture and Roads. At the appropriate times of year, one of the royal Druids comes through and casts the appropriate crop-growing spells. They're the three most loyal districts, of course.

Maybe the farms around Drywood Hill were founded right after the War of Three Giants, in the ashes of the old forest, in spite of the legends about the witches on the hill. The towns come together every year for an unusually raucous midsummer celebration -- they even pay for outside entertainment, and the towns certainly subsidize the festival's ale and hard cider supply. The townsfolk say it's to show off, and maybe get some new blood. Every few years, though, some beautiful boy visits the festival but doesn't come back. The witch-nymph of Drywood Hill has taken a meal back to her grove of dryads. In return, she annually blesses the fields, and protects the farmers from comparable threats, according to the contract she forged with the humans in the wake of the war. She's not really happy with the arrangement, but she tolerates it because the alternative was being burned out by the giants.

Stuff like that.

[Mechalich]

If your setting has magic sufficiently commonplace and utilitarian to the point where it has filtered down to have a material effect on everyday activities by the peasants - which is what magically enhanced technology means - then you no longer have a medieval setting with magical elements, you have a magical setting and you need to either determine what the setting that follows from whatever your magic system happens to be accordingly, or commit to ignoring the implications of how such widespread magic would change your world (the latter is by far the more common route, but it is inherently lacking in verisimilitude and as a result, has limits on how serious the drama can be).

As a result, if you want medieval peasants functioning in a largely agrarian economy to be the principle population group of your setting, then there's a limit on how much magic you can have, and, equally important, how functional that magic can be. For example, the most common mystical elements in most societies are not ritual 'wizard-style' magical elements but instead supernatural religious elements. After all, the most common type of 'magic-user' in 13th Century France was the local priest. Such persons are actually quite common. Pre-industrial society had a lot of religious figures.

'Wizard' type magic is often limited by an education barrier. For example, in the classic case of a wizard who studies ancient tomes, recites incantations, and conducts complex magical works, class is a barrier. You have to be able to read and to devote potentially years of study to achieving even the basics. Peasants can't do that, so they don't get to be wizards. Or if there's some essential spark required plus years of study, peasant children get carried off from their parents and remade into wizards - another common approach (the Wheel of Time uses this, among others). Since the educated class in a medieval world is maybe one percent of society, that imposes some really quite strict limits on how abundant magic can be. This is actually a good natural limit, since most fantasy medieval settings make much more sense if wizards are the 0.01% of society and magic lacks abundance and ability to scale as a result.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I like a fair bit of magic in my quasi-medieval fantasy. Everybody gets a couple of free cantrips SLAs, schools teach first-level SLAs, masters teach magecraft to apprentices, that sort of thing. Only educated specialists cast real spells, but there are some early universities that teach the Art.

[Darth Ultron]

I like the common folk to have simple and useful magic.

So like they have a 'hot knife' for cutting through soft things. Or a broom that can animate and sweep a room.

They, in general, don't have adventuring magic like fireballs. But they do have all the protective magics. So they have a combination of abjuration and enchantment magic.

I love the sort of stuff like ''the river Osst has a enchantment on it, so if anyone gets close they feel happy and get a compulsion to go see their family. And the clever peasant's build a town right on that river.

[Faily]

I prefer my peasants unmagical, digging in dirt, critical of systems of government, and standing up the violence inherent in the system.

[Seclora]

I like there to be plentiful NPC casters, Acolytes in temples and shrines across the land, local alchemists in small towns, and wizards common enough everyone knows that so-and-so's boy is in-training and generally where at. However, like Dragons, high level casters are much less common on account of how most die before they can get to that level.
Most peasants would have awareness of the difference between the types of magic and know where they could buy a healing potion if they needed one. Those with enough cash might buy an enchanted plow, hire a local druid to empower their crops, or own an everburning lantern to light the house.

I prefer my peasants unmagical, digging in dirt, critical of systems of government, and standing up the violence inherent in the system.

I like my Peasants to be oppressed. Serves 'em right for not voting for me.

[Pleh]

My peasant magic depends on the society the belong to.

More primitive cultures revere (and have trouble trusting) mages and clerics, which are few in number and typically rule their communities, guide from outside, or are outcasts. Most spells used are healing and divination.

Rural villages might be fortunate enough to have a parish lead by a priest with heroic levels, but any non native magics are intensely mistrusted (as it usually belongs to larger, healthier, sometimes interracial communuties with whom relations are strained). These towns add morale and strength buffing spells to the typical repertoire.

Larger towns usually are far more adept with magic, having a few more resident mages and clerics to make the population feel familiar with magic and protected by it. At this level, magic becomes plentiful enough to exhibit recreationally in addition to fixing common problems. Also, magicians begin to lose some political sway as the social structure is no longer helpless against a low level caster. They begin to face law restrictions on their magical activities.

Large cities tend to have little fear of magic (at least as a collective body). They have a decent chance to provide patronage to a college of the arcane arts and they almost certainly hold a distinguished cathedral lead by a mid to upper level cleric, served by a small army of student clerics. These established spellcasting authorities help monitor and regulate malicious magic use in the city and surrounding region, but even the city guard is sufficiently numerous and equipped to handle most low level caster threats without involving the mages. This is the level where magical curiosity shops and legendary magic item crafters can often be found.

The only larger category is a political capital, which sacrifices some economic size for higher security and bigger government offices.

Clearly, this assumes standard human society. Modify for culture and race as necessary.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In my opinion, magic has to be strange and unusual or else it's not magic. Just weird, different science where the experts wear snuggies instead of labcoats. In which case, pretty much every educated character in the setting should have at least one level in wizard because academic understanding is literally all it takes to do wizard stuff.

That's where I'm glad I don't play 3.5e. For me, being a wizard is more than being able to wave your hands. Most people (as in 99%) can, if they practice a lot, learn to do a few simple tricks (a cantrip, maybe a 1st level spell). Some may have made friends with a few particular spirits who are willing to do favors for them (druids). A decent chunk have racial aptitudes for specific spells. What they don't have is spell slots. In my world, these are actual parts of the soul of certain people. They're pockets full of anima (soul stuff, magical energy) that can be funneled into a pattern (a spell). Without the anima, waving your hands around does nothing even if you do it exactly.

1% of the population has the potential to gain power equivalent to a 1st level PC. 10% of those (0.1%) can hit the equivalent of level 5. 10% of those (0.01%) can hit level 11. 10% of those can hit level 17 (0.001%), and 10% of those can hit level 20 (0.0001%, about one in a million). That's only potential. Many people with that potential live and die ignorant of it, or die young, develop it in other ways, etc.

Most NPC spell-casters are either a) magically-blooded (and therefore similar to sorcerers except with x/day casting) or b) people who have particular talents. That talented healer who can cast resurrection? She's not a level 13 Cleric (with all that that entails), but a person who is particularly blessed by her goddess with healing powers due to her faith and devotion. She's effectively got a hot-line to the goddess who directly answers her prayers with a spell, as long as they're for very particular things and are done in particular ways. While healing, she's directly an arm of her goddess; while not channeling that energy, she's a regular person. That means if she irritates her goddess, bye-bye powers. That seer? He's been studying divination for years and can only really cast divination spells, but he's darn good at it.

Only PCs (and a few others) are generalists. No one else gets to pick from a list of spells ranging from illusions to nukes. Even most wizards take years to learn a new spell. Of course, they can learn spells that PCs will never be able to (because they're not willing to spend decades studying and personalizing it, nor are they willing to spend a week chanting a spell with 63 other people to cast it).

[Drakevarg]

Only PCs (and a few others) are generalists.

I think this premise is a big part of the reason why I butt heads philosophically with a lot of other D&D players. I have always rejected the premise of The Special. Destiny is hogwash, the heroes aren't unique, and outside of their direct sphere of influence they don't matter. They're nothing more than talented and lucky individuals who were in the right place at the right time. Anything they can do, it's a safe assumption that anyone else can replicate it in the right circumstances.

This is also why I usually play low magic - the idea that anything the PCs can do, anyone else can do with proper motivation, and the notion that the PCs can casually bend reality to their whims don't play well together in any sort of coherent setting.

I've never cared for the Superman myth, and have always found the argument that we need to look up to him as something to aspire to because he's better than we could ever hope to be utterly ridiculous. Where some people see a beacon of hope and a source of awe, I see nothing but petty self-indulgence.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think this premise is a big part of the reason why I butt heads philosophically with a lot of other D&D players. I have always rejected the premise of The Special. Destiny is hogwash, the heroes aren't unique, and outside of their direct sphere of influence they don't matter. They're nothing more than talented and lucky individuals who were in the right place at the right time. Anything they can do, it's a safe assumption that anyone else can replicate it in the right circumstances.

De gustibas and all that. My PCs aren't destined--they are special (mainly because 99.9% of everyone doesn't leave 10 miles from where they were born, and that makes for a boring RPG). There are many adventurers--most of them don't live past their first few missions. The PCs aren't unique either--I tend to run branching timelines and have several groups running from the same starting point and their changes persist (and sometimes get merged back into the canonical timeline). My players find that having their successes (or failures!) of campaigns past actually change the setting is a huge draw for them.

This is also why I usually play low magic - the idea that anything the PCs can do, anyone else can do with proper motivation, and the notion that the PCs can casually bend reality to their whims don't play well together in any sort of coherent setting.

5e doesn't really have that problem. Even at high levels, no one is casually bending reality to their wills (unless the DM is compliant). Although a 20th level character is powerful, he's can still be brought down by a legion of archers (for example). It's a much more human scale (although still more powerful than some people like, which I fully understand) than 3.PF was.

I've never cared for the Superman myth, and have always found the argument that we need to look up to him as something to aspire to because he's better than we could ever hope to be utterly ridiculous. Where some people see a beacon of hope and a source of awe, I see nothing but petty self-indulgence.

If that was in response to me, I'm not sure how. I'm not fond of comic-book superheros at all and would never use them as positive examples of things.

[Drakevarg]

If that was in response to me, I'm not sure how. I'm not fond of comic-book superheros at all and would never use them as positive examples of things.

More just a continuation of my distaste for The Special.

[Knaight]

In my opinion, magic has to be strange and unusual or else it's not magic. Just weird, different science where the experts wear snuggies instead of labcoats. In which case, pretty much every educated character in the setting should have at least one level in wizard because academic understanding is literally all it takes to do wizard stuff.

It's also all it takes to do science, yet far from every educated person is capable of actually doing difficult science, and that's with modern standards where 12 years of education isn't seen as enough to make one educated.

[Drakevarg]

It's also all it takes to do science, yet far from every educated person is capable of actually doing difficult science, and that's with modern standards where 12 years of education isn't seen as enough to make one educated.

No, but the average educated person (and by educated I don't mean "has a degree," I mean educated as in "has reached the basic social expectations of education") knows rudimentary chemistry, mathematics, engineering, astronomy, and physics. In a world where knowing how things work = exerting some level of control over them, basic book learning would logically afford a minor capacity for spellcasting.

And, related to my above rejection of "The Special," no I don't buy that a first level wizard has the equivalent of a doctorate, let alone a PhD. Being a wizard is well within the capacity of races with lifespans significantly shorter (and intellects objectively dimmer, so it's not a raw talent thing) than humans, so it's not like it takes 30-odd years to learn how to cast cantrips (unless you're an elf, in which case it takes that long to get toilet trained).

[Knaight]

And, related to my above rejection of "The Special," no I don't buy that a first level wizard has the equivalent of a doctorate, let alone a PhD. Being a wizard is well within the capacity of races with lifespans significantly shorter (and intellects objectively dimmer, so it's not a raw talent thing) than humans, so it's not like it takes 30-odd years to learn how to cast cantrips (unless you're an elf, in which case it takes that long to get toilet trained).

I'm all for rejection of the special, but it's worth observing that some level of specialization is common in basically any society. Any given person is probably more capable than the vast majority of people at something, simply by virtue of there being so many different skills in life. That first level wizard is thus going to be better than the vast majority of people at wizard magic, the same way a first level fighter is going to be better than the vast majority of people at fighting, the same way a first level silversmith* is going to be better than the vast majority of people at working with silver. A given first level farmer* probably isn't better than the vast majority of people at farming, but that's just because almost everyone farms and thus the class is very broad. They may very well be better than the vast majority of people at birthing goats, while another might be better than the vast majority of people at digging properly sized furrows for millet.

The wizard also doesn't need the equivalent of a doctorate, they just need more specialized wizard education than most. It's roughly analogous to a freshman engineering student already being better than most people at math. It's not that they're particularly impressive, it's that choosing to specialize beyond the societal baseline at all puts one in surprisingly high percentiles at a skill.

*To use a hypothetical class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm all for rejection of the special, but it's worth observing that some level of specialization is common in basically any society. Any given person is probably more capable than the vast majority of people at something, simply by virtue of there being so many different skills in life. That first level wizard is thus going to be better than the vast majority of people at wizard magic, the same way a first level fighter is going to be better than the vast majority of people at fighting, the same way a first level silversmith* is going to be better than the vast majority of people at working with silver. A given first level farmer* probably isn't better than the vast majority of people at farming, but that's just because almost everyone farms and thus the class is very broad. They may very well be better than the vast majority of people at birthing goats, while another might be better than the vast majority of people at digging properly sized furrows for millet.

The wizard also doesn't need the equivalent of a doctorate, they just need more specialized wizard education than most. It's roughly analogous to a freshman engineering student already being better than most people at math. It's not that they're particularly impressive, it's that choosing to specialize beyond the societal baseline at all puts one in surprisingly high percentiles at a skill.

*To use a hypothetical class.

I very much agree. My training is in an area where specialization is the norm--an expert in Computational Collision Theory (a branch of quantum mechanics) isn't better than an average upper-division physics student at much of the rest of physics (due to skills degenerating with disuse). When it comes to other areas of science, I'm no better than any other person who took a few classes in college a long time ago. Specialization simultaneously brings great benefits while also imposing costs.

In 5e D&D, a level 1 character is only slightly better (higher ability scores, a little more health, a few class abilities) than a commoner. And about the same as a guard or tribal warrior. A level 20 character is much better in most ways, but non-proficient skills and saves aren't significantly better than those of the commoner. Characters develop in their specialty, but not outside of it.

The characters are special because we chose to focus on them (as opposed to anyone else in the setting), and we focus on them because they're different than the norm. If 99% of the world are illiterate peasants, educated people are special. I don't know about you, but Farming Simulator Medieval Fantasy is not what I'm looking for in a game.

[Samzat]

I love low fanatasy, so I usually have peasants whose magical interaction is at most a monster in the woods, a mystic of some sort (like a witch or a shaman or something) or in extreme cases have made a pact with a minor outsider or spirit. Maybe the elder has a minor magic bauble like a protective talisman or ring, but otherwise not very mucn magic.

[Drakevarg]

In 5e D&D, a level 1 character is only slightly better (higher ability scores, a little more health, a few class abilities) than a commoner. And about the same as a guard or tribal warrior. A level 20 character is much better in most ways, but non-proficient skills and saves aren't significantly better than those of the commoner. Characters develop in their specialty, but not outside of it.

This part is pretty much my point with "if academic understanding is sufficient for magic, then everybody with an education should at least be capable of rudimentary spellcasing." Sort of in the same way that anyone who has been through military basic training probably has at least one level of Fighter (or some other martial class as appropriate). Obviously a professional wizard is going to be a better wizard than the vast majority of other people, and a black-ops operative could probably trounce most E1 privates with next-to-no effort. But they're also not level 1 characters, i.e. "just barely better than the dishwasher at the inn."

[PhoenixPhyre]

This part is pretty much my point with "if academic understanding is sufficient for magic, then everybody with an education should at least be capable of rudimentary spellcasing." Sort of in the same way that anyone who has been through military basic training probably has at least one level of Fighter (or some other martial class as appropriate). Obviously a professional wizard is going to be a better wizard than the vast majority of other people, and a black-ops operative could probably trounce most E1 privates with next-to-no effort. But they're also not level 1 characters, i.e. "just barely better than the dishwasher at the inn."

But nothing about the system requires that everyone is capable of gaining class levels. The class/race rules really don't apply to NPCs--they're only for PCs (by explicit construction).

Most temple workers aren't Clerics, most guards aren't Fighters, most monastic dwellers aren't Monks. Most scholars of the arcane aren't Wizards. This is actually called out explicitly in the rules. There's a long-standing tradition in fantasy of the "academic who studies magic, but can't actually use it." Innate talent is explicitly called out in the class descriptions.

That is, I'm disputing the validity of the conditional. Academic training is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a Wizard--you can be a Wizard who picked it up on the street (Urchin background); military training is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a Fighter--you can be a Fighter who spent his life in a library (Sage background). Or who grew up in a temple (Acolyte background).

[FreddyNoNose]

Magic should be impractically expensive. If you want technology then just add technology, no need to add magitek for things that can be more easily and cheaply done with mundane means. (because for me it is immersion breaking)

There is nothing wrong with a magic technocracy. You can mixed magic and tech in a world, like Dave Hargrave did with his Arduin.

[FreddyNoNose]

I like when things are plausible.

In a D&D world, for example, it's very difficult to reconcile the extreme threat levels posed by monsters in the wilderness with anything resembling historical farm practices.

So, if you're talking about peasants in a game like D&D, I'd always be on the side of magic.


Whose magic, though? Probably not the peasants themselves, because if they had their own magic, they would tend to stop being peasants.

That means it's usually an outside force of some kind.


If I'm feeling creative, then each village or region will have a different outside force.

Maybe the three heartland valleys will be supported by the Royal Druidic Council of Agriculture and Roads. At the appropriate times of year, one of the royal Druids comes through and casts the appropriate crop-growing spells. They're the three most loyal districts, of course.

Maybe the farms around Drywood Hill were founded right after the War of Three Giants, in the ashes of the old forest, in spite of the legends about the witches on the hill. The towns come together every year for an unusually raucous midsummer celebration -- they even pay for outside entertainment, and the towns certainly subsidize the festival's ale and hard cider supply. The townsfolk say it's to show off, and maybe get some new blood. Every few years, though, some beautiful boy visits the festival but doesn't come back. The witch-nymph of Drywood Hill has taken a meal back to her grove of dryads. In return, she annually blesses the fields, and protects the farmers from comparable threats, according to the contract she forged with the humans in the wake of the war. She's not really happy with the arrangement, but she tolerates it because the alternative was being burned out by the giants.

Stuff like that.

I think you are on the right track there Nifft. If everyone is running around with spells, what does that do? Is it only those who can toss off top level spells are special? Magic would be like ordinary long swords. Do we think about those all the time?