Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 1551509" data-attributes="member: 115">Actually, yes it does, it's just subtle in it's obviousness.&nbsp; Big=bad is a very logical conclusion to come too... one that by your own argument the Int 3 person would have trouble making.&nbsp; The same can be said of club=bad, yucky teeth=bad, muscley=bad, and so forth.&nbsp; If a thing has all of those traits, then it is bad.&nbsp; That's quite the chain of logical assumptions.&nbsp;&nbsp;Again, the muscles=hurt association you're making is too logical a leap for something with an Int of 3. &nbsp;For example, most animals don't distinguish between a big burly human and a tiny skinny one.&nbsp; A skunk will spray you no matter what you look like.&nbsp; A deer will likely run, a bear is likely to roar and make itself look big.&nbsp; In many instances they won't even make the distinction that you are a human... intrude on a gorilla's group, and they'll come and try to drive you off no matter what.&nbsp; A komodo dragon will try to eat anything that comes near it, elephant or mouse.&nbsp;Now, an animal is Int 1 or 2, but is that really that big a step between Int 2 and Int 3?&nbsp; If it is, then my suggestion is that animals simply have no Int (like undead and Con), because you're not measuring brain function anymore, you're measuring intellect, which is pretty much absent from most animals.&nbsp;Of course, there's a learned response, such as Pavlov described with his dogs, and later psychologists with humans.&nbsp; Until a creature has learned a response to something, there's usually a default response it takes, and that response is usually survival.&nbsp; So for example, if an Int 3 character has never seen an ogre, he'll probably just run away and hide, or posture if he thinks it's encroaching on it's territory.&nbsp; Maybe in time an Int 3 character will pick up a conditioned response that ogre=bad, or probably more likely club=bad... but he isn't capable of analyzing (to use your argument) a situation to determine all of these variables you and I think of as &quot;common sense&quot;.&nbsp; To continue my argument, once club=bad is made, then all clubs are bad, even if held by someone that isn't threatening.&nbsp; You can't differentiate, because analysis is not possible.&nbsp;The big problem here is that common sense is not solely a function of wisdom, as the PHB would have you believe.&nbsp; Common sense necessitates certain logical functions and analysis of situations that an Int 3 character would find all but impossible.&nbsp; Realistically, a character with an Int 3 is simply un-roleplayable, being hardly different at all than a chimpanzee.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 1551509, member: 115"] Actually, yes it does, it's just subtle in it's obviousness. Big=bad is a very logical conclusion to come too... one that by your own argument the Int 3 person would have trouble making. The same can be said of club=bad, yucky teeth=bad, muscley=bad, and so forth. If a thing has all of those traits, then it is bad. That's quite the chain of logical assumptions. Again, the muscles=hurt association you're making is too logical a leap for something with an Int of 3. For example, most animals don't distinguish between a big burly human and a tiny skinny one. A skunk will spray you no matter what you look like. A deer will likely run, a bear is likely to roar and make itself look big. In many instances they won't even make the distinction that you are a human... intrude on a gorilla's group, and they'll come and try to drive you off no matter what. A komodo dragon will try to eat [i]anything[/i] that comes near it, elephant or mouse. Now, an animal is Int 1 or 2, but is that really that big a step between Int 2 and Int 3? If it is, then my suggestion is that animals simply have no Int (like undead and Con), because you're not measuring brain function anymore, you're measuring intellect, which is pretty much absent from most animals. Of course, there's a learned response, such as Pavlov described with his dogs, and later psychologists with humans. Until a creature has learned a response to something, there's usually a default response it takes, and that response is usually survival. So for example, if an Int 3 character has never seen an ogre, he'll probably just run away and hide, or posture if he thinks it's encroaching on it's territory. Maybe in time an Int 3 character will pick up a conditioned response that ogre=bad, or probably more likely club=bad... but he isn't capable of analyzing (to use your argument) a situation to determine all of these variables you and I think of as "common sense". To continue my argument, once club=bad is made, then [i]all[/i] clubs are bad, even if held by someone that isn't threatening. You can't differentiate, because analysis is not possible. The big problem here is that common sense is [i]not[/i] solely a function of wisdom, as the PHB would have you believe. Common sense necessitates certain logical functions and analysis of situations that an Int 3 character would find all but impossible. Realistically, a character with an Int 3 is simply un-roleplayable, being hardly different at all than a chimpanzee. [/QUOTE]

Verification