Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 05-01-06, 12:36 PM	In my DM's homebrew campaign world, society is basically very racist. Orcs, goblins, etc, basically have to carry identification papers around all of the time, and are arrested for going outside of their home district (this is a sort of "Nuremberg Laws" prelude, I believe, to an actual genocide that takes place later in my DM's campaign world history). Trolls are regarded as wild animals and killed. I play a scholarly, intelligent type of guy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=608001) (archivist/psion). He has a lot invested in Knowledge skills (I gave him at least one rank in every knowledge skill). When we came across a troll who was smashing stuff in the city. Anyway, after we had reduced it to unconsciousness, the DM said I that the most probable knowledge skill to figure out what was wrong with it was knowledge (nature). I made a knowledge (nature) check, and got a 28 (18 roll, 5 ranks, 3 intelligence, 2 archivist lore mastery bonus). He told me, "you think that it is a wild animal, scared of the city." My character had previously heard an orc talking to the troll (in a language I couldn't understand, granted), trying to calm it down. My guess is that my character's "knowledge" about trolls being wild animals is basically a reflection of the in-game society's prejudices, not the truth within the campaign world. Anyway, do you think that this makes sense, that a scholar who happens, on a check, to know a lot about trolls, would actually still view them through the lens of societal prejudice, even though knowledge is supposed to represent objective, scientific knowledge to an extent? I went along with it, and talked a bit about how the troll might make a good zoo specimen if they don't have a pair already, and let the giant cop we were talking to kill the troll, but I'm just wonder how much sense it makes, once knowledge checks get into the high 20s, to have knowledge represent popular perceptions rather than objective facts. Of course, I could be misreading this entirely, and maybe trolls really ARE wild animals in his campaign world.
DeathsAudit 05-01-06, 12:53 PM	I talk to my dog. If somone tryed to prove "woof" ment the dog was as smart as me... A sense motive for a hunch is the best bet.
Derren S. 05-01-06, 12:55 PM	You could. Or you could simple have rolled to low to recognice that the troll is somethinf different then a wild beast. Anyway, whatever you do watch out that you don't start metagaming.
nyysjan 05-01-06, 01:13 PM	Trolls might be nothing more than bright (or dumb) animals in your GM's campaign world your DM might also be a jerk and giving you false knowledge because he doesn't want your character to act in certain way or you might just have failed your knowledge check, either through DC being wery high, or because there were situational modifiers (cultural/societal prejudice might be worth a -2, rarity of trolls might bring another -2, so could your backstory or area where you are at the moment, and have been in the past) other than asking your DM, there is no way to know
Kragar's Shadow 05-01-06, 01:17 PM	At 5 ranks, Knowledge(nature) I would guess that just means that all the books you've read say that trolls are like animals. That may or may not be the case, but it's what you know you've read.
Whim 05-01-06, 02:33 PM	If your "scholar" was born and raised in that environment with those views, then odds are that he'd still be raised to see trolls as animals. He might be somewhat sympathetic to their existance--much like PETA in real life--but that doesn't really change the fact that he's been raised and taught to see them as animals. So, yeah, even after reading countless books, there's still a good chance that in that world, all your books still only tell you that trolls are animals. Of course, being an educated person, it's possible that you could overcome the primitive views of your society by spending enough time with civilized trolls who don't try to eat you.
Gedrin 05-01-06, 02:36 PM	I would imagine as a scholarly sort, you've read all the books that originally lead to the societal misconception. In fact, I imagine that, unless you've done "independent research" you'll have detailed knowledge about the various troll behaviors that seem intelligent, but are merely mimicing behaviors...like the talking to an orc. Just think about how many books you've read that uphold the prevailing view regarding troll nature. Education gives no special protection from prejudices when the prejudices are in line with the prevailing view among academia.
JulesCARV 05-01-06, 03:01 PM	So.... in your view, is there any difference between a character who has high ranks in knowledge (nature) and someone who doesn't? It seems like someone with high ranks and someone without ranks are both ignorant, but that someone without any ranks is probably less well-versed in her ignorance. It seems like knowledge skills are a poor place to put skill points, if they just mean that you have a lot of false information rather than no information at all. Or so it seems to me: am I missing something?
Hodo 05-01-06, 03:31 PM	So.... in your view, is there any difference between a character who has high ranks in knowledge (nature) and someone who doesn't? It seems like someone with high ranks and someone without ranks are both ignorant, but that someone without any ranks is probably less well-versed in her ignorance. It seems like knowledge skills are a poor place to put skill points, if they just mean that you have a lot of false information rather than no information at all. Or so it seems to me: am I missing something? Knowledge can tell you many other things about trolls. What varieties they come in, where they can be found, what they eat, how they raise their young, or something else that would be useful. Also, you're applying this check to one single instance. While knowledge (nature) may not be useful in letting your character realize that trolls are more intelligent than popular thought suggests, but that is only one fact out of a seemingly endless number. It is possible for a person who knows more than average about something to not know EVERYTHING about something.
ArcTan 05-01-06, 05:23 PM	In the 19th century, it would have been the opinion of most of the world's highly educated scholars that people of African descent were genetically inferior to people of European descent, and that they possibly comprised a different subspecies of humanity closer to animals and less evolved than humans. This is, of course, what we today would think of as blatant racism and absolutely false. However, the way academia and science work is that if you start with a certain prejudice it's going to be very difficult for all the evidence in the world to overturn that prejudice -- instead, you interpret all the evidence you get in light of that prejudice. It's just not true that the more educated you became, the more enlightened you became about the races and the less racist you were. Sometimes it'd be the exact opposite, in fact -- the "scientific" worldview of the time, based on the interpretations everyone had of all the "evidence" that everyone knew was true, was that the races were clearly hierarchical in nature and that whites were better than blacks, and people who disagreed tended to do so for religious reasons, or for "subjective, personal" reasons (such as being black themselves). We're all products of our culture, and the crude racism of the uneducated classes was only a reflection of the refined, heavily justified, highly "scientific" racism of the educated classes. They all held the same opinions, just some held it in a very simple way with only personal experience to back it up, while others held forth on long, complex theories about the inferiority of other races with lots of cherry-picked examples from explorers and anthropologists to back it up. But it's hugely misleading to think that an increase in education and knowledge is going to automatically catapult you over the prejudices of your culture. If anything, being buried in books and academia is going to ingrain the prejudices of your culture into you far *more* heavily than if you had lived an isolated life out in the countryside, maybe actually meeting real trolls once in a while.
ArcTan 05-01-06, 05:25 PM	So.... in your view, is there any difference between a character who has high ranks in knowledge (nature) and someone who doesn't? It seems like someone with high ranks and someone without ranks are both ignorant, but that someone without any ranks is probably less well-versed in her ignorance. It seems like knowledge skills are a poor place to put skill points, if they just mean that you have a lot of false information rather than no information at all. Or so it seems to me: am I missing something? If the whole society is ignorant about something, Knowledge skills aren't going to let you transcend the limits of the culture and society you grew up in, at least not without a *huge* number of ranks. (You could, sure, independently do enough science to finally determine that racism was a lot of bunk, but it would require being immensely smart and spending a *lot* of time working and thinking and getting past things you'd been taught as a child.) In a campaign set in ancient Greece, yes, a high-Knowledge character knows about the crystalline spheres and the four elements and Aristotelian impetus and all that and knows nothing about Newtonian physics. That still puts him at an advantage above other people in his world, though, since he's more educated by their standards and by their standards is more effective at doing things, even if we would think the things he believes are bunk.
Azezel 05-01-06, 07:41 PM	A Ranger who's spent his life out there, in the wild studying trolls first hand might have 5 ranks in Knowledge (Nature), and your Archivist, who's spent his life in Libraries, reading about Trolls has the same Five ranks. You both know the same amount of information - but the information you know is wrong. If the Ranger came into the city and explained his theories on Troll behavior, he would be regarded as wrong. Id est, your character knows a great deal about Trolls, he knows as much as his society can teach him in fact - but no amount of scholarship can overcome an actual lack of accurate information. Long story short - I'm, with your DM on this one, mate.
Gedrin 05-02-06, 03:55 AM	Until his understanding of trolls is informed by independent research, yes, the more he reads of "Trolls Are Animals Vol 1-20" the less likely he will be to come to the conclusion that trolls are not animals. He may learn all sorts of facinating things about troll anatomy, but things like language and culture are probably out of it. The skill system as presented in the core books does not address cultural biases, nor does it account for different cultural methods in technology, construction, or use of materials. According to the skill system as RAW, there's nothing really to keep French swordsmiths from making katanas. Thing is, apparently people can talk to Orcs, and Orcs can talk to trolls. There's clearly a line of communication present, and if trolls actually do have things we associate with intelligence; language, culture, complex thought, concept of the future and past, it shouldn't be too hard to come to a point where you begin to question the validity of the conclusions of current research. Once someone decides to re-examine the conclusions that the great troll scholars came to, then they might see things in a different light. What was once explained away as mimicing behavior becomes language and simple hoarding instincts could well be planning for a harsh winter.
Cantankerous 05-02-06, 04:50 AM	In my DM's homebrew campaign world, society is basically very racist. Orcs, goblins, etc, basically have to carry identification papers around all of the time, and are arrested for going outside of their home district (this is a sort of "Nuremberg Laws" prelude, I believe, to an actual genocide that takes place later in my DM's campaign world history). Trolls are regarded as wild animals and killed. I play a scholarly, intelligent type of guy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=608001) (archivist/psion). He has a lot invested in Knowledge skills (I gave him at least one rank in every knowledge skill). When we came across a troll who was smashing stuff in the city. Anyway, after we had reduced it to unconsciousness, the DM said I that the most probable knowledge skill to figure out what was wrong with it was knowledge (nature). I made a knowledge (nature) check, and got a 28 (18 roll, 5 ranks, 3 intelligence, 2 archivist lore mastery bonus). He told me, "you think that it is a wild animal, scared of the city." My character had previously heard an orc talking to the troll (in a language I couldn't understand, granted), trying to calm it down. My guess is that my character's "knowledge" about trolls being wild animals is basically a reflection of the in-game society's prejudices, not the truth within the campaign world. Anyway, do you think that this makes sense, that a scholar who happens, on a check, to know a lot about trolls, would actually still view them through the lens of societal prejudice, even though knowledge is supposed to represent objective, scientific knowledge to an extent? I went along with it, and talked a bit about how the troll might make a good zoo specimen if they don't have a pair already, and let the giant cop we were talking to kill the troll, but I'm just wonder how much sense it makes, once knowledge checks get into the high 20s, to have knowledge represent popular perceptions rather than objective facts. Of course, I could be misreading this entirely, and maybe trolls really ARE wild animals in his campaign world. See, this is to me the difference between folk lore and Knowledge. Folk lore would give you the information the DM did. That should be, according to the RAW, a DC*10 result. A DC*28 result should have given you all the basic, folklore information about trolls (DC*10), all the more esoteric information about them that wasn't really obscure (DC*15), basic information about roughly how fast, tough and capable they REALLY are (DC*16, 10 plus the trolls basic hit die) and should have allowed two more REALLY specific questions concerning them to be answered (at DC*21 and DC*26... the basics plus +5 for each piece of useful information). It's a shame that the DM feels he has to so severely nerf one of your characters major abilities (Knowledge skills) that way. A DC*28 should provide a HUGE amount of REAL information that is, to quote from the skill "useful", which what he provided you most definately was not! I'd certainly talk to him about it if i were you. Isshia
DIESCUMDIE 05-02-06, 07:17 AM	There are three things in conflict here: Real Knowledge Skill use DM enviroment Real Knowledge. If you saw the Troll talking you think you should be able to tell it's smart. But by that logic if you personally knew how to make gunpowder or knew that trolls had int 5 (or whatever) in the mm would you use that in the game? Skill use, your skill has been rendered rather useless. But that happens very regularly, sometimes they aren't very useful. It is hard for a dm to cater to each players skills. DM enviroment. It is unfortunate that the dm's enviroment extends beyond the background and has basically started to tell you what to do. Generally you should be allowed to make your own decisions wether they fit in with the setting or not. You are the player, its your character. PETA members really think that animals should have all the rights people do. Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean your dm can stop you doing it. But if you go against the dm too much his story and the game will crumble. Sounds like you've entered a battle of wills. Good luck
JulesCARV 05-02-06, 07:45 AM	There's no battle of wills yet. I haven't contested any of this yet. My character agreed to have the troll killed, and didn't try to defend it or anything like that. In fact, it's possible (though I seem to recall from the DM's previous attempts to develop this world that it isn't the case) that trolls really are wild animals. I'm just wondering how knowledge works. I can't say I'd be delighted that I spent five skill points learning junk science, but if that's the way it goes, it's okay.
Azezel 05-02-06, 09:42 AM	Mate - when you were at school - you spent 11 years (or more) learning things what our current culture beleives to be true. A significant minority of these things are in fact, not true. That's life.
Hodo 05-02-06, 04:57 PM	See, this is to me the difference between folk lore and Knowledge. Folk lore would give you the information the DM did. That should be, according to the RAW, a DC*10 result. A DC*28 result should have given you all the basic, folklore information about trolls (DC*10), all the more esoteric information about them that wasn't really obscure (DC*15), basic information about roughly how fast, tough and capable they REALLY are (DC*16, 10 plus the trolls basic hit die) and should have allowed two more REALLY specific questions concerning them to be answered (at DC*21 and DC*26... the basics plus +5 for each piece of useful information). It's a shame that the DM feels he has to so severely nerf one of your characters major abilities (Knowledge skills) that way. A DC*28 should provide a HUGE amount of REAL information that is, to quote from the skill "useful", which what he provided you most definately was not! I'd certainly talk to him about it if i were you. Isshia His DC just wasn't high enough to make a world shattering discovery. You COULD rule that if lived in the 1500's and rolled a 30 knowledge (physics) check, I should be able to suddenly realize that matter can be neither created nor destroyed, or how nuclear fission operates. But that wouldn't make sense within the continuity of the world.
JulesCARV 05-02-06, 08:46 PM	Hmm... what if there were a secret -10 circumstance penalty to knowledge checks on trolls within this society, so that my result was really an 18, rather than having a 28 simply not have much information attached to it? That seems like it preserves the skill system better.
Whim 05-02-06, 08:50 PM	Hmm... what if there were a secret -10 circumstance penalty to knowledge checks on trolls within this society, so that my result was really an 18, rather than having a 28 simply not have much information attached to it? That seems like it preserves the skill system better. Sounds reasonable, but I think what you're dealing with is more of a philosophical debate within the world. You're not rolling to see if you know hard FACTS--you're rolling to see if you can overcome everything you've always been taught. There's not really much you can learn that would tell you for a FACT that trolls are not savage animals. It's going to be much more about being able to change your personal beliefs. Of course, if you change your personal beliefs within this society, I imagine MANY people would hate you for possibly supporting evil, nasty trolls.
JulesCARV 05-02-06, 09:59 PM	Errr... it seems to me that the cognitive abilities of a troll ARE a FACT. It's just not a fact that my character would know. It's really an objective fact, not some kind of subjective judgment. It's just that my character is wrong.
robertliguori 05-02-06, 11:16 PM	If the world has spells like Detect Thoughts, then questions of animal sentience are neither academic nor interesting. Of course, incorrect beliefs about creature sentience will last only as long as nobody subjects a troll to such a spell. Furthermore, conspiracies to deprive a creature of their rights as a sentient creature will not go over well for the paladins and goodly clerics in the game world; killing a troll for being a troll is an evil act, and no amount of social pressure will work on a phylactery of faithfulness.
Pyritefoolsgold 05-02-06, 11:57 PM	I think that with that high of a knowledge check, you should have gotten closer to a paragraph, including at least ONE dissenting opinion, even if painted in an illigitimate light. And I don't like how your DM Phrased this. He should have said "Your knowledge of natural things tells you" Rather than "You think." by telling you what you think, he is superceding your control over your character's mind.
Nate Jones 05-03-06, 12:28 AM	I guess I am of a differing opinions than many that have already posted. While I certainly am not going to chide the DM for his decisions (As it was both reasonable and quick), I will chime in on my thoughts on the meta-physical concept of knowledge skills. I believe, in a world of black/white morality and Gods whose entire domains include the preservation of knowledge (Oghma coming first to mind), we can assume there is such a thing as absolute, objective truth. Things either are things, or they are not. Schroedinger's cat can be explained as 'magic'. Therefore, I believe a high enough knowledge check could, and certainly should, warrant insight into the 'absolute truth'. I don't know what DC to set such break-off at, and I would prefer not to, taking instead a more holistic approach. A high check should reveal some fragment of truth, or for example, one of those "Eureka!" moments. Conversely, a low check should either confirm existing misconceptions or foster new ones. Yes, knowledge is based on cultural perceptions. But at some point in time, someone must break those. A sixteenth century man certianly didn't discover the relative nature of time, but he did take a step in that direction by developing universal laws of motion. Perhaps the OP's knowledge doesn't reveal that trolls are far more intelligent than credit is given, but it does reveal that some inconsistancies in troll behavior have been obseved that are thusforth unexplainable. As a DM, I prefer to reward rather than punish if given an ambiguous opportunity, and if nothing else, I greatly enjoy any opportunity to furnish the depth of my campaign. Take this advice with that grain of salt.
Cantankerous 05-03-06, 01:45 AM	His DC just wasn't high enough to make a world shattering discovery. You COULD rule that if lived in the 1500's and rolled a 30 knowledge (physics) check, I should be able to suddenly realize that matter can be neither created nor destroyed, or how nuclear fission operates. But that wouldn't make sense within the continuity of the world. The facts of the beast are hardly world shattering; and no, you could not rule that a DC*30 check allows you to know how nuclear fission works (except in a vague way)...as it is built on dozens of other models and theories and does not stand alone. The troll on the other hand DOES so stand. He can be studied insitu, he can be dissected and analyzed in a variety of ways that are not simple folklore. For MOST of western European history everyone knew the Earth was flat. BS. From the days of Pythagoras it was mathematicly proven that this was stupidity, yet 99.9% of Europe was ignorant of the fact through out a period of more than 1500 years. THAT is the difference between Knowledge and folklore. Isshia
Hodo 05-03-06, 07:32 AM	The facts of the beast are hardly world shattering; and no, you could not rule that a DC*30 check allows you to know how nuclear fission works (except in a vague way)...as it is built on dozens of other models and theories and does not stand alone. The troll on the other hand DOES so stand. He can be studied insitu, he can be dissected and analyzed in a variety of ways that are not simple folklore. For MOST of western European history everyone knew the Earth was flat. BS. From the days of Pythagoras it was mathematicly proven that this was stupidity, yet 99.9% of Europe was ignorant of the fact through out a period of more than 1500 years. THAT is the difference between Knowledge and folklore. Isshia Okay I chose a poor anaology. I didn't mention anything about anyone believing the world was flat though. The player in question has never actually studied a troll. All he has done has read books, and the DM has made it quite clear that it's believed that trolls are nothing more but animals. I don't see why it would be difficult to believe that such prejudices could not be supported by acedemic research that reached a similar conclusion. He also has no personal basis on which to found a belief on how sapient trolls are. He hasn't dissected one, or observed them in nature. He hasn't even studied them in depth. He's a booksmart guy with knowledge is knowledge (nature), which means he's read some nature books, in which he's read SOME information about trolls. I don't think that qualifies him to be amongst the few in the naturalist community to realize just how sapient they are. He is basing his realization on the fact that he saw an orc trying to comfort and calm down a troll by talking to it. Speak to Animals? Handle Animal skill? Calm Animal class ability? Simply an intelligent creature that understands, but cannot speak any other languages and has little regarding a culture? To be honest, Trolls are somewhat smart, but not THAT smart. They have an average intelligence of 4-6, which is comporable to a Thoqqua, Griffon, Ethereal Marauder, Ettin, Ettercap, or other more aggressive creatures we associate more as being animals (or very smart animal-like creatures) but not something you'd excatly feel deserve the same kind of treatment as a human, dwarf, or even an orc. Then there's Blink Dogs, Pegasi, Giant Eagles, and Unicorns which are all smarter than a troll (and just as smart as humans and most other races), and I'm pretty sure if the DM tried to establish a campaign where these creatures were more like animals then players would have no problem with believing it. I can see how the DM can allow this to work, work believably, and work rather fairly.
Whim 05-03-06, 08:35 AM	Errr... it seems to me that the cognitive abilities of a troll ARE a FACT. It's just not a fact that my character would know. It's really an objective fact, not some kind of subjective judgment. It's just that my character is wrong. Well, sure, you'd probably realize the troll is talking or something, but, "Hey, look over there! It's a talking dog!" Yeah, one or two signs of intelligence aren't enough to change what you believe. You'd probably start playing with the idea in your head for at least a few days or so before forming any real theories about how civilized a troll really is. And even then, you'd probably only upgrade them to the status of savages, much like early settlers of America thought of the Native Americans initially. And really, a "savage" is usually barely a step up from an animal in the minds of the average person.
Lincoln Hills 05-03-06, 02:34 PM	Like everybody else has been saying, JulesCARV: You got no leg to stand on. My sympathies are with you, but your DM's on solid ground. Knowledge in a given field only works within the 'limits of science' of that field. That doesn't mean your character is helpless to act on his 'hunch' that there's more to a troll than his stink. You can make attempts to view trolls "in the wild" (very dangerous, by the way) in order to see if they have tool use, language, etc. But unless and until you can provide empirical proof, you'll be considered a loony with bizarre scientific opinions. (In fact, judging from real science pioneers of earlier centuries, at least 40% of the populace will continue to think you're a loony even if you get a troll to organize, compose, and conduct for the Troll Philharmonic Orchestra.)
Nom 05-03-06, 08:34 PM	Remember, too, that birds can "talk", and many larger dogs can understand quite a lot of human speech. Yet we still consider these creatures animals. The line between sentient and non-sentient has a lot more to do with how we choose to measure the line than an objective naturalistic chasm.