Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7070440" data-attributes="member: 20564">If you go back to the original source material, there was no primal magic.  Arcane (which you cover above) and divine, which didn't (really) exist as an option for the players.  Druids and such fell under divine back then, they did not exist at all.  In exchange, psionics were added.Primal was a new power source introduced in 4e, and one that the paragraph above is trying to back-fit into an existing mold that did not have a space for it.  So let's try to think of how people would react.Can city-folk tell the difference between primal magic and arcane magic, or is it all magic feared?  It's pretty sure that the Sorcerer-Kings would want to control all magical power so they would encourage fear of all magic and turning people in so that they could recruit or kill those with primal power.  So I say in the cities they would respond negatively to all magic, and may not even know that is a non-defiling type of magic as generations of fear have caused primal magic to be rare in the cities.The flip side is outside the cities.  Magic that can heal and do other things without killing the land would be prized.  Perhaps jealously so but that needn't be the rule.  Though still any outsider who can do magic would be suspected as a potential despoiler until that is proven, perhaps again and again.  But once proven, they could be seen as a great aid to the strength of the tribe.Looking at how that meshes with the statement about 4e primal magic it seems pretty close, so it's likely it's a similar vein of thought.  SKs and their Templars would try to enslave any magic, but it can be trusted outside their influence if proven not to be despoiling magic.EDIT:  There is a "older D&D edition" forum here  that has a lot of active 4e players on it - this may get more discussion there.</blockquote>

Verification