what skill would you use for researching in a library?

[King of Nowhere]

One of my groups started arguing about that, as there seem to be no clear solution.

The first candidate would be knowledge, of course. except, as the DM pointed out, knowledge is what you already know, not what you can read in a book. One may want to consider them together - scientists in the real world are trained in researching informations in databases - but then again, not - there's plenty of people with lots of knowledge who wouldn't know what to do in a library. In fact, scientists get a specific training for researching information in databases, so you may use it to argue it's a different skill

Second best candidate is search, which looks an ideal fit. there is only one problem: what is the class most associated with research in a library? the wizard. ANd yet the wizard doesn't have search as a class skill. doesn't make much sense that a rogue can find informations in books better than the wizard.

gather information doesn't really fit, it specifically states that it's a social skill involving charisma.

I tried to suggest using spot to locate keywords, but the DM retorted that I can't do everything with spot. He's got a point, but as my only out-of-combat skill I either use it creatively or I do nothing :)

What is your suggestion for skill to use in researching in a library?

[Kelb_Panthera]

IIRC, the Eberron Campaign Setting has rules for researching things in a library.

[Deophaun]

Libraries are tools that provide a bonus to Knowledge checks (Stronghold Builder's Guide, and also Eberron Campaign Setting where you spend a feat so that you can do what you already could do...). It makes no sense to have a skill in order to use a tool to get a bonus to another skill.

[daremetoidareyo]

The research feat in the ebberon campaign setting music search.

Libraries themselves tend to offer a bonus after X amount of hours or days of study.

[Mike Miller]

Knowledge makes sense. You are using what you know and the resources of the library to continue learning. Also, I have seen libraries in modules state that researching in libraries gives bonuses to Knowledge skills. So, some authors already have it down as knowledge.

[P.F.]

I've convinced a DM in the past that a library counts as a masterwork tool for any knowledge check. When I DM, I allow additional time spent researching to allow retries on knowledge checks.

Gather information in a library is a bit touchy, but it can be done--reference librarians are helpful but unlikely to know the specific information you want, while visiting scholars are a better bet, they are likely to shush you instead of schmoozing. Still, a sufficiently charismatic scholar might be able to make this work.

Search in a library would be pertinent if you needed a specific book (which has been lost or intentionally misshelved), or even a specific type of book, but not for finding out what book contains the information you want.

As for a spot check... "X" marks the spot?

[frogglesmash]

I'd arbitrate that the library gives a bonus on knowledge checks, as well as allowing to retry knowledge checks, but I'd also make each check take a long time. The bigger the library, the bigger the bonus, the longer the time necessary for each check. I'd also allow a search check to reduce the amount of time required for any given knowledge check.

[EnnPeeCee]

If you are doing research over a long period of time, trying to glean information from books, what about using Decipher Script?

"You can decipher writing in an unfamiliar language or a message written in an incomplete or archaic form."
Specifically, information spread out through a library would be similar to information written in incomplete form.

[Saintheart]

Obligatory link to the Angry DM's view on passive versus active uses of skills (http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-passive-skills-active-skills-perception-and-knowledge/), including Knowledge. Researching things in a library would amount to an active use of the skill.


But, now the question is, if Knowledge can be passive, can it be active? I would argue that yes, yes it can. Every field of study includes not only the collective body of information that it consists of, but also of the ability to use the right tools to get the answer. Arcana is not just “knows a lot about magic.” Arcana is “knows the field of academic of study of magic.” Someone versed in Arcana should know how to research magical answers. How to use libraries, how to find experts and ask the right questions, and how to conduct magical experiments. Someone schooled in Religion doesn’t just know about the gods, they also know rituals and prayers and proper ways to deal with priests and ways to make offerings and gain specific deity’s favor. They also know the scriptures well enough to know where to look for an answer if they don’t have it. If someone doesn’t know the prayer to stop undead from rising, they at least know which experts to consult or what books to start with.

In that respect, Knowledge can be active. And it really should be. But GMs rarely use it as such. Knowledge skills are only ever about recall. And then they are misused because the GM insists on direct questions and non-actions, as if Knowledge is a button the player has to press.

[XionUnborn01]

I always have libraries giving a bonus to knowledge checks and a search check decreasing the time it takes to give the bonus. I also increase the cap on the highest untrained DC by 2 for every day spent in a library. So after a week, you can usually get at least some information about any topic if the library is big enough and well kept.

[Psyren]

Obligatory link to the Angry DM's view on passive versus active uses of skills (http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-passive-skills-active-skills-perception-and-knowledge/), including Knowledge. Researching things in a library would amount to an active use of the skill.

*snip*

^ This. "Knowledge is what you know" is overly simplistic and ultimately wrong. Knowing how to look something up is part of a body of knowledge too, not just remembering something you learned previously.

[Nifft]

I sometimes remove Gather Info (Cha) and replace it with Investigate (Int).

Investigate (Int) would be the relevant skill for library delving.

It does other stuff, too.

[RoboEmperor]

If you're researching a spell it's spellcraft.

If you're looking up information it is search. You want to know how cars work. You go to a library, search the indexes, search the books, keep searching until you either give up or find the information your'e looking for.

If you're researching something like a new way to pave roads faster or make castles stronger it's the appropriate knowledge or craft check at the appropriate DC determined by the DM.

[King of Nowhere]

Obligatory link to the Angry DM's view on passive versus active uses of skills (http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-passive-skills-active-skills-perception-and-knowledge/), including Knowledge. Researching things in a library would amount to an active use of the skill.

I always felt that way, but I never found a good way to put it, and an associated mechanic that was functional.

Thank you all

[NomGarret]

Diplomacy: Hi librarian, can you help me find a thing?

Bluff: This is definitely the book!

[heavyfuel]

If my players have access to a big enough library I let them Take 10 and 20 on any trained knowledge check.

This special form of Take 10 requires not only the library itself but also 8 hours worth of research. The logic being that something that is considered average knowledge for a specific character should be somewhat readily accessible and they don't take too long to find the information they need. Oftentimes I fluff this research as just a confirmation of something they were already pretty sure of.

Taking 20 requires the library and 1d4 weeks of research. This allows players to use the books to the maximum of their knowledge.

[Deophaun]

If my players have access to a big enough library I let them Take 10 and 20 on any trained knowledge check.
Um... they can take 10 on any trained knowledge check anyway. This isn't UMD.

[heavyfuel]

Um... they can take 10 on any trained knowledge check anyway. This isn't UMD.

I guess I was confusing it with Bardic Knowledge. Anyway, it's one those things that have been a (house) rule for so long now I have no intention of changing. I also quite enjoy the idea of knowledge being somewhat random, like you don't remember everything you've ever studied.

[Psyren]

I guess I was confusing it with Bardic Knowledge. Anyway, it's one those things that have been a (house) rule for so long now I have no intention of changing. I also quite enjoy the idea of knowledge being somewhat random, like you don't remember everything you've ever studied.

I would say that's already covered by the Take 10 rules. The stuff you might not remember is the stuff you'd have needed higher than a 10 to get anyway. Everything at 10 and less is the stuff you have down pat.

[BassoonHero]

I'm going to be contrary here and suggest that you don't use a skill. Don't roll for it at all.

Presumably, the players are looking for some reasonably specific piece of information. Either the library has what the players seek, or it doesn't (at the DM's choice, depending on which answer suits the story). If the library does have it, then the players should find it. If no one in the party has any plausible research expertise, they can hire a librarian to help them at trivial cost.

Rolling for research in this situation is problematic for several reasons:

- It sidelines characters who don't have the right skills.
- The roll itself is going to be fairly arbitrary, because there is no useful DC guidance.
- Whether the players succeed or fail, the process of deciphering the D&D Dewey Decimal System is unlikely to be exciting or memorable. At the bar after the game, no one is going to gush about the time the bard found the right keyword reference in the card catalog.
- The outcome will presumably be either that the players have the information they need, or that they have to find it elsewhere. If you, the DM, think that it would be interesting for them to find it elsewhere, then simply declare that the information isn't in the library. If that wouldn't be interesting, then just tell the players that they've found it. If you have them roll for research, then a success perversely denies them (and you) an interesting side quest.

[heavyfuel]

I'm going to be contrary here and suggest that you don't use a skill. Don't roll for it at all.

Presumably, the players are looking for some reasonably specific piece of information. Either the library has what the players seek, or it doesn't (at the DM's choice, depending on which answer suits the story). If the library does have it, then the players should find it. If no one in the party has any plausible research expertise, they can hire a librarian to help them at trivial cost.

Rolling for research in this situation is problematic for several reasons:

- It sidelines characters who don't have the right skills.
- The roll itself is going to be fairly arbitrary, because there is no useful DC guidance.
- Whether the players succeed or fail, the process of deciphering the D&D Dewey Decimal System is unlikely to be exciting or memorable. At the bar after the game, no one is going to gush about the time the bard found the right keyword reference in the card catalog.
- The outcome will presumably be either that the players have the information they need, or that they have to find it elsewhere. If you, the DM, think that it would be interesting for them to find it elsewhere, then simply declare that the information isn't in the library. If that wouldn't be interesting, then just tell the players that they've found it. If you have them roll for research, then a success perversely denies them (and you) an interesting side quest.

I very strongly disagree with this.

Librarians don't know everything. They would know which sections of the library contains the books most likely to have the answer you seek, but that's about it.

Then, even if the library does have whatever they're looking for, and even if the librarian does know specifically what book they should read, the players still need to understand the information they're reading about. I know next to nothing about advanced physics. If you give me a book on it, I will say "yes, these are words and I can pronounce them". Same goes for characters without the necessary knowledge skills.

-If this sidelines characters without the skill, well, that's part of the game. Plenty of things sideline characters without access to a particular skill. These characters can go do something else to help the party.
-The roll isn't arbitrary. The DC might be (since it's set by the DM), but the roll itself isn't. Plus, there are guidelines in the PHB on how high the DC should be.
-That's why this doesn't take long at all IRL. It might take time in in-game time, but it shouldn't take more than a minute for the players.
-If your games operate on a railroad basis that the players will eventually find any information necessary for the plot, that's you. Don't generalize, though.

The part that I think is useful about this post is the part that maybe the library doesn't have the information they're seeking. A d100 roll by the DM to determine this could be interesting

[NomGarret]

There’s also the possibility that a particularly good roll/set of rolls may grant information above and beyond what was sought. This could’ve directly related or not. Maybe the PCs are lucky and tucked on top of the book they were looking for is the history of the ancient order whose symbol was tattooed on a party member’s estranged father.

Or they could get a really bad roll and the library only has the misleading unannotated version of the book they’re looking for.

[Thurbane]

The research feat in the ebberon campaign setting music search.

Yes, the Reserach feat (ECS p.59) seems to have the most comprehensive details of how to navigate a library in the 3.5 rules; it specifically states it allow you to use Knowledge checks to do so, which implies that Knowledge is not the skill normally used.


This feat expands the way you can use the Knowledge skills. It allows you to use a Knowledge skill to navigate a library, an office filing system, a chronicler's repository, or a church's records storage cell in order to discover information. You must be able to read the language the texts are written in to research them.


Stronghold Builder's Guidebook (3.0) p.25 also has info on libraries (mainly the costs involved in setting them up. The Books sidebar details how various libraries can give insight bonuses to Knowledge checks.

[BassoonHero]

Librarians don't know everything. They would know which sections of the library contains the books most likely to have the answer you seek, but that's about it.
Yes, that's the idea.


Then, even if the library does have whatever they're looking for, and even if the librarian does know specifically what book they should read, the players still need to understand the information they're reading about. I know next to nothing about advanced physics. If you give me a book on it, I will say "yes, these are words and I can pronounce them". Same goes for characters without the necessary knowledge skills.
The premise of my reply was, "Presumably, the players are looking for some reasonably specific piece of information.". I will further stipulate that the information sought is consequential. If it's inconsequential, then there's no reason to roll for it in the first place (other than an insistence upon rolling dice as often as possible). For instance, perhaps the players are looking for:

- The meaning of a particular symbol they've come across.
- The location of an obscure site or relic.
- The history of an old cult that they suspect is resurfacing.
- The true name of the Dread Wyrm of the East.
- The secret of the ancient necromancer's original defeat.

These examples represent active attempts by the players to accomplish something specific, and they could have one of three outcomes:

- The players find the information. They can proceed with their quest.
- The players find nothing relevant. They are stuck.
- The players do not find the information, but they find a clue to where they should look next. They can proceed with their quest.

If the players need the answer to proceed, then from an RPG perspective the second outcome is of no use to anyone. If the players can't proceed because of the outcome of a single Knowledge check, then the quest is poorly designed. If you want to call this principle "railroading", then so be it.

That leaves two options: either the players find the information in the library or they need to look elsewhere. For instance:

- Those records are under seal in the Imperial Archives. If the players want access, they'll have to convince the High Archivist that their quest is in the Empire's interest -- or they'll have to break in.
- The only one who knew the necromancer's weakness was the paladin who slew him, and she refused to reveal it. If you want to speak with her ghost, you'll need a relic. Unfortunately, the only one known to survive was her sword, which is displayed proudly in the halls of the drow who sacked the abbey.
- The sole surviving history of the cult was stolen -- ironically -- by the cultists trying to revive it.
- "What are you talking about? We already turned over the old map to the king's champions. They picked it up yesterday. I think they left the city in some haste."

There is nothing wrong with these options. Quite the opposite, success is boring by comparison! A successful Knowledge check means that the players skip a side quest.

[The Insanity]

Profession (librarian)?

[Psyren]

Yes, the Reserach feat (ECS p.59) seems to have the most comprehensive details of how to navigate a library in the 3.5 rules; it specifically states it allow you to use Knowledge checks to do so, which implies that Knowledge is not the skill normally used.

I would argue that restriction only applies to Eberron, since libraries are not exclusive to that setting but this feat is.



There is nothing wrong with these options. Quite the opposite, success is boring by comparison! A successful Knowledge check means that the players skip a side quest.

I don't have a problem with your sidequests (indeed, they could be quite fun and rewarding) - but I believe that rewarding players who build their PCs to be clever is valuable too. Missing a sidequest can be a good thing if the main quest has a time limit or sense of urgency, which honestly most main quests should, or else where are the stakes?

[Quertus]

Arson. Whatever survives is magical, and worth looting / plot critical, and will therefore survive.

[Thurbane]

Well, Search is essentially an Int check that you can augment by spending skill points (i.e. honing your eye for details), so it probably isn't entirely an inappropriate skill for the task of finding info in a library...

As for Wizards not getting it as a skill, there are ways around that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?491181)...although looking at them now, none are especially useful for a single classed Wizard. :smallfrown:

[Nifft]

As for Wizards not getting it as a skill, there are ways around that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?491181)...although looking at them now, none are especially useful for a single classed Wizard. :smallfrown:

Elf Wizard racial sub levels are pretty great even if you didn't need Search.

[tterreb]

Profession (librarian)?

I suddenly know what I want my next character to be...

[Nifft]

I suddenly know what I want my next character to be...

Found you some character art:

https://i.imgur.com/Ya4WckR.jpg

PS: We also know exactly what happens when you roll a 1 on a library search check...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbq2UV3XSeU

[Zanos]

I seriously doubt that most anyone here that wasn't highly specialized would understand a book on theoretical machine learning algorithms if they found the book in the library.

Presumably you can't read up on the particulars of the ancient demon king sealed away for a thousand years unless you have a decent background in demons and the planes in general, because high level academic reading on particular and especially niche topics generally assumes the reader has a background in the field. You can't pick up a Calc II book if you don't know Algebra. In that sense, it's more about being able to understand the material than find it. You could argue that someone could read their way up to it, but that's more of a problem with Knowledge and skill advancement in general being tied to level and XP, rather than a library giving a bonus to knowledge checks.

[heavyfuel]

If the players can't proceed because of the outcome of a single Knowledge check, then the quest is poorly designed. If you want to call this principle "railroading", then so be it.

This is bad.

It's not "a single Knowledge check". It's no one in the party deciding to invest ranks in this skill.

The world shouldn't be tailored to players. You shouldn't find magical Spiked Chains because that's what the Fighter wants, and if no one in the party speaks Terran, you shouldn't change an ancient text to Dwarven so that they can proceed. If no one has invested ranks in Knowledge religion to know what that symbol is, it's not your job as DM to give this information out to them.

Tailoring the world IS railroading. At least a version of it.

They don't have the knowledge skill? Well, go find some other way. Gather Information, hire a mid-level priest to help you out, anything. A library should be one way to deal with lack of information, but it's hardly the only way. If the players give up on the quest, it's either your fault for not making it interesting enough, or it's their loss because they missed the loot and XP.


success is boring by comparison! A successful Knowledge check means that the players skip a side quest.

If you think a successful knowledge check is a boring form of success, then why do you even play a game where knowledge checks exist? It's like saying "If the players can sneak around my boss it will be boring because they'll skip an awesome fight!".

That's railroading 101! That's you wanting for things to happen your way, and not giving the players any authority over their choices.

If the players invested in a knowledge skill, they should succeed on it if they have access to unlimited recall of this knowledge. If the players find a way to skip your amazing side quest because you didn't plan on one of them having a skill trained, you shouldn't say it's boring. You should be happy for your players for playing to their character's strengths, which is precisely what they should be doing in an RPG.

[Deophaun]

It's not "a single Knowledge check". It's no one in the party deciding to invest ranks in this skill.
There are lots of things in the game, and few parties have the resources to invest in all of them. If they are missing something vital, you need to communicate that somehow before it becomes central to the game.

Fortunately, there's no reason for this to be an issue in this case. Hire someone with the requisite knowledge skill. That the solution exists and is a trivial expense past early levels makes this an odd check to require in the first place.

The world shouldn't be tailored to players. You shouldn't find magical Spiked Chains because that's what the Fighter wants... Tailoring the world IS railroading. At least a version of it.
If I give my players control over what treasure they find, that's actually the precise opposite of railroading. I've let my players choose treasure, set up battlemaps, and pick the form of their destroyer countless times. It's great. I highly recommend giving it a try.

The world should be tailored to the players because it literally exists to entertain them. If the only way forward is through an obstacle that is tedious (note: not challenging, just tedious) for the party to overcome, the obstacle should be altered or removed. If the party is bored with your dinner party encounter, throw your notes for the next four hours into the trash and wrap it up.

[heavyfuel]

Fortunately, there's no reason for this to be an issue in this case. Hire someone with the requisite knowledge skill. That the solution exists and is a trivial expense past early levels makes this an odd check to require in the first place.

If I give my players control over what treasure they find, that's actually the precise opposite of railroading. I've let my players choose treasure, set up battlemaps, and pick the form of their destroyer countless times. It's great. I highly recommend giving it a try.

The world should be tailored to the players because it literally exists to entertain them. If the only way forward is through an obstacle that is tedious (note: not challenging, just tedious) for the party to overcome, the obstacle should be altered or removed. If the party is bored with your dinner party encounter, throw your notes for the next four hours into the trash and wrap it up.

The part that they have to think about the possibility of hiring someone is a challenge itself. Also, for really obscure knowledge, you need someone high level who may not be available at a moment's notice, so you get to improvise a side quest if you want.

If you don't want, then it has a cost in GP associated with the hiring. A cost that wouldn't exist had someone invested in the skill. If they invested in it, they should be rewarded.

Letting them buy whatever treasure, sure. But if they happen to find that +1 keen collision adamantine elven courtblade the Ranger happen to really want one in the boss' hoard, that's too much for me. There's only so much disbelief I'm willing to suspend.

While you are supposed to entertain them, it doesn't mean you should handle things on a silver platter. Tedious things are ok throw away, because they're boring. But having mysteries in your world tend to not be that.

[Quertus]

The world shouldn't be tailored to players. You shouldn't find magical Spiked Chains because that's what the Fighter wants, and if no one in the party speaks Terran, you shouldn't change an ancient text to Dwarven so that they can proceed. If no one has invested ranks in Knowledge religion to know what that symbol is, it's not your job as DM to give this information out to them.

Tailoring the world IS railroading. At least a version of it.

They don't have the knowledge skill? Well, go find some other way. Gather Information, hire a mid-level priest to help you out, anything. A library should be one way to deal with lack of information, but it's hardly the only way. If the players give up on the quest, it's either your fault for not making it interesting enough, or it's their loss because they missed the loot and XP.

If you think a successful knowledge check is a boring form of success, then why do you even play a game where knowledge checks exist? It's like saying "If the players can sneak around my boss it will be boring because they'll skip an awesome fight!".

That's railroading 101! That's you wanting for things to happen your way, and not giving the players any authority over their choices.

If the players invested in a knowledge skill, they should succeed on it if they have access to unlimited recall of this knowledge. If the players find a way to skip your amazing side quest because you didn't plan on one of them having a skill trained, you shouldn't say it's boring. You should be happy for your players for playing to their character's strengths, which is precisely what they should be doing in an RPG.

So, I think I can safely say that I agree with everything in this post, with the mild exception that the bolded part, if taken fully literally, assumes or implies that the PCs are vegetable idiots who never go questing for specific items. If the Fighter really wants magical spiked chains, he should (have someone) research where to find magical spiked chains. :smalltongue:


There are lots of things in the game, and few parties have the resources to invest in all of them. If they are missing something vital, you need to communicate that somehow before it becomes central to the game.

Or you could... wait until it becomes central to the game, and communicate it then? And then have the party play the cool "how do we overcome this hurdle?" minigame?

EDIT: on the other hand, if the core components of a PC would be unplayable in a campaign, that should be communicated before the campaign, in session zero, so the player can decide if they'd rather play someone else.


If I give my players control over what treasure they find, that's actually the precise opposite of railroading. I've let my players choose treasure, set up battlemaps, and pick the form of their destroyer countless times. It's great. I highly recommend giving it a try.

I... may need some help here. I can't even figure out what this would / could look like.

I mean, I've played in a games where, say, the GM was the world builder / story teller, and the co-GM would stat everything out on the fly. So I guess I get that things can be statted out on the fly. But how does your proposed idea interact with things like dropping hints, or world building with interacting pieces?


The world should be tailored to the players because it literally exists to entertain them. If the only way forward is through an obstacle that is tedious (note: not challenging, just tedious) for the party to overcome, the obstacle should be altered or removed. If the party is bored with your dinner party encounter, throw your notes for the next four hours into the trash and wrap it up.

True, to a point. Personally, I'm not as good at this kind of dynamic pacing as I'd like to be.

[Deophaun]

The part that they have to think about the possibility of hiring someone is a challenge itself.
For a very loose definition of "challenge."

Letting them buy whatever treasure, sure. But if they happen to find that +1 keen collision adamantine elven courtblade the Ranger happen to really want one in the boss' hoard, that's too much for me. There's only so much disbelief I'm willing to suspend.
That's because you think the ranger has any wants. The ranger is a fictional character; as such, it doesn't want anything. It's the player that wants.

Or you could... wait until it becomes central to the game, and communicate it then? And then have the party play the cool "how do we overcome this hurdle?" minigame?
If you can overcome something without the vital element, then the element wasn't vital, was it? Vital organs aren't called such because they make you live creatively.

I... may need some help here. I can't even figure out what this would / could look like.
Have you ever played with lego? Same idea, but the pieces are bigger and multiplayer. Giving players the opportunity to construct the battlefield gives them additional control over some class features that would otherwise only be useful if the GM included them, encouraging them to take options that might otherwise be dismissed as too situational. It also generally creates more interesting situations, as while I seed what I think the map should look like, it's the druid player that adds a massive tree into the middle of the town square or the rogue that adds a water wheel that combatants can ride to the rooftops.

I mean, I've played in a games where, say, the GM was the world builder / story teller, and the co-GM would stat everything out on the fly. So I guess I get that things can be statted out on the fly. But how does your proposed idea interact with things like dropping hints, or world building with interacting pieces?
I ask/eavesdrop on the group to find out what monsters they find interesting/have always wanted to fight but couldn't/fear the most. Some of those become set pieces among a bunch of other set pieces.

If the players take all the hints I've dropped and come up with something better than I in their theorizing, I steal the idea, shake it up, and pretend that's what it always was.

Players are a terribly underutilized creative resource.

[Andor13]

Profession (librarian)?

A good skill, but racially restricted to Orangutans.

[Fynzmirs]

If you don't mind using third-party material, there are better rules for using libraries in Encyclopedia Arcane: Tomes and Libraries.

[King of Nowhere]

As for Wizards not getting it as a skill, there are ways around that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?491181)...although looking at them now, none are especially useful for a single classed Wizard. :smallfrown:

yeah, but if you have to resort to oblique character building to make a wizard capable of researching a library then there is somehting wrong. A wizard normally built should be good at using a library.

Ultimately I prefer by far the "50% of knowledge is knowing how to find the information" because I am a phd in chemistry and for 90% of chemical questions my answer would actually be "I don't know it off the top of my head (or I only know it vaguely) but I know exactly where to look for it, and I can understand it once I found it".
Self-trained people who don't know how to navigate a library are best represented by the "profession" or "craft" skills, which should allow you to know stuff related to your profession or craft.

[heavyfuel]

So, I think I can safely say that I agree with everything in this post, with the mild exception that the bolded part, if taken fully literally, assumes or implies that the PCs are vegetable idiots who never go questing for specific items. If the Fighter really wants magical spiked chains, he should (have someone) research where to find magical spiked chains. :smalltongue:

I meant more in the sense of "random" treasure. If they research, then it's very fair to give them one (or simply letting them buy it at the nearest magi-mart)


For a very loose definition of "challenge."

That's because you think the ranger has any wants. The ranger is a fictional character; as such, it doesn't want anything. It's the player that wants.

Hey, you'd be surprised. Never in your RPG career have the players missed something completely obvious?

And saying fictional characters have no wants is a big downplay of the role playing factor of RPGs and of fiction in general. If I play a Cleric, the Cleric might want to spread his faith, whereas I would like no such thing IRL. If Cersei wants to sit on the iron throne, it's her desire, not George Martin's.

Fictional character do indeed want things, and that's what makes them interesting in the first place.

[Deophaun]

And saying fictional characters have no wants is a big downplay of the role playing factor of RPGs and of fiction in general. If I play a Cleric, the Cleric might want to spread his faith, whereas I would like no such thing IRL. If Cersei wants to sit on the iron throne, it's her desire, not George Martin's.

Fictional character do indeed want things, and that's what makes them interesting in the first place.
The lack of existing precludes wanting.

[Psyren]

yeah, but if you have to resort to oblique character building to make a wizard capable of researching a library then there is somehting wrong. A wizard normally built should be good at using a library.

Ultimately I prefer by far the "50% of knowledge is knowing how to find the information" because I am a phd in chemistry and for 90% of chemical questions my answer would actually be "I don't know it off the top of my head (or I only know it vaguely) but I know exactly where to look for it, and I can understand it once I found it".
Self-trained people who don't know how to navigate a library are best represented by the "profession" or "craft" skills, which should allow you to know stuff related to your profession or craft.

Yeah, this. Needing a feat to know how a library works, even if you have 30+ Int, is completely ludicrous.


I meant more in the sense of "random" treasure. If they research, then it's very fair to give them one (or simply letting them buy it at the nearest magi-mart)

Even without crafting and shopping though you shouldn't be opposed to giving players what they need. In many campaigns, the PCs are championing the cause of one god or another, so it would be in their best interests to steer them towards good tools for the job. Making sure John Swordfighter and Bill Hammercleric find a decent sword and a hammer is the least they can do.

[BassoonHero]

I seriously doubt that most anyone here that wasn't highly specialized would understand a book on theoretical machine learning algorithms if they found the book in the library.

Presumably you can't read up on the particulars of the ancient demon king sealed away for a thousand years unless you have a decent background in demons and the planes in general, because high level academic reading on particular and especially niche topics generally assumes the reader has a background in the field. You can't pick up a Calc II book if you don't know Algebra. In that sense, it's more about being able to understand the material than find it. You could argue that someone could read their way up to it, but that's more of a problem with Knowledge and skill advancement in general being tied to level and XP, rather than a library giving a bonus to knowledge checks.
Sure -- but the examples I suggested, and which I think are reasonably typical, are not so esoteric. What you're talking about sounds more like, say, spell research, which has specific rules already.


They don't have the knowledge skill? Well, go find some other way. Gather Information, hire a mid-level priest to help you out, anything. A library should be one way to deal with lack of information, but it's hardly the only way.
It seems that you agree with me after all.


If you think a successful knowledge check is a boring form of success, then why do you even play a game where knowledge checks exist?
I'm not sure how seriously to take this question. Surely you're not suggesting that I should abandon the system because I disagree with the implementation of one minor mechanic.


It's like saying "If the players can sneak around my boss it will be boring because they'll skip an awesome fight!".
It is not like that, because the mechanics involved are very different. I've written about this in more detail elsewhere, but:

- Sneaking around the boss is a risky and hazardous course of action. Generally speaking, this is not true of library research.
- The difficulty of the task is determined by real, identifiable characteristics of the world -- specifically, the boss's perception abilities, the terrain, whether the area is trapped, and do on. Knowledge DCs are subjective, arbitrary, and inscrutable.

Sneaking around the boss is a logical way to overcome the challenge that the boss presents. Library research is not a challenge in the first place. There's no strategy, no choice of approach, no interaction -- you just roll a d20 and see if the DM says it worked (based on a DC that is completely opaque to the players). This is a perfectly reasonable thing for players to do, but it's not something that needs a d20 roll.

I'm not even saying that library research is boring. It's an opportunity for roleplaying, for worldbuilding, for introducing side characters. Depending on the players, the story, and the pacing, the trip could be a major part of a game session. (Or, it could take three minutes of real time, if that works better.) But adding a Knowledge check at the end doesn't make it interesting -- on the contrary, it risks turning an interesting encounter into a shaggy dog story.


If the players invested in a knowledge skill...
Players "invest" in knowledge skills:
- To identify monsters.
- To activate Knowledge Devotion.
- To qualify for prestige classes.

Players may take knowledge skills for other reasons, such as characterization. This is not an investment, because there is no reasonable expectation of returns. If you're not using them for the above purposes, Knowledge skills are a bad investment, like Toughness or Lightning Reflexes. The marginal utility of rolling checks for library research is not really significant. In other words, I share your concern about players' investment in Knowledge skills, but to a greater degree than you express here.

This, along with all of the other problems with the Knowledge skill, suggests that in-character knowledge is misclassified as a skill in the first place. It's important, and I think it deserves a place on your character sheet, but it's a bad fit for skill ranks, checks, and DCs. Some kind of simplified "background" system would work much better.


The part that they have to think about the possibility of hiring someone is a challenge itself.
I disagree. Not every obstacle is a challenge. In this case, the obstacle is overcome trivially.


If you don't want, then it has a cost in GP associated with the hiring. A cost that wouldn't exist had someone invested in the skill.
The cost is negligible. The PHB lists the cost of a "trained hireling" as 3 sp/day. The examples given include "scribes" and other skilled professions requiring specific skill ranks. For a specialized library research assistant, I'd bump up the price to a full gold piece, or maybe even more. But this is not going to represent any significant expenditure of resources. A second-level party will never notice the cost.


you need someone high level who may not be available at a moment's notice
What sequence of events leads to this?

We're supposing that:

- The information is available in the library for someone with the knowledge to interpret it.
- The information is extremely obscure and difficult to understand.
- No one at the library (or its sponsoring institution, such as a temple or university) is qualified to interpret the information.

I wonder what this information is in the first place. What are the players looking for that is so incomprehensible? The examples I provided don't seem nearly so abstruse. And why does the library have this specific piece of information but no one who can understand it? I would expect a library in a medieval-like setting to be a center of scholarship.

Moreover, how does the party reach the conclusion that they need to find a high-level specialist? If the party doesn't find what they're looking for with the librarians' aid, why would they conclude that a high-level specialist would find that information, rather than that the library doesn't have it? We must suppose that the party did find the information, and that they correctly identified it, but that they failed to understand it (because they failed a Knowledge check).

In this scenario, the players did not actually roll a Knowledge check to find the information! They failed the check, but found the information anyway. The players found the information without a check and then rolled a check to understand it. (This is not how I understood the OP's question, but never mind.)

Suppose that this happened in real life. Suppose, in particular, that to solve some practical problem I need to understand a theoretical machine learning algorithm. It's cutting-edge stuff, and none of the folks at the local CS department know what to make of it.

Now suppose that in one case I am knowledgeable about computer science, but that I don't immediately grasp the algorithm. What I'm going to do is grab some books and papers and work through the problem until I understand the algorithm. I'll probably consult with some knowledgeable people regarding background information. In the end, I will gain the knowledge through this process. Simply finding someone who already understands it wouldn't make me understand it; at most, they might save me some time. (None of this process is well modeled by rolling a Knowledge check.)

Suppose the contrary case, that I don't know anything about computer science. Then this is hopeless! At best, an expert could give me a general outline of the topic relying on analogy, but certainly not a sufficiently deep understanding for me to use the algorithm to solve a difficult problem.

In order for "find a better expert" to be a practical solution, the final answer to the original question needs to be simple enough that the party can make use of it. This conflicts almost unavoidably with the other premises. The question is simple enough, the answer is simple, the required information is available, none of us and none of the librarians can find the answer given that information, but a higher-level character could. What sort of question fits this pattern? A question that relies upon a secret. That is, in order to get the answer, you need to know a secret code, or an ancient dead language, or otherwise possess a certain key that "unlocks" the problem. At this point, we've reduced the Knowledge check yet further: roll to see whether you know the secret or not.

Another reason I dislike the Knowledge skill is that rolling to see if you know something doesn't represent any action or attempt on a character's part. You're rolling randomly to determine whether your character has already learned something. This is not at all like hiding from a creature, jumping over a pit, or even identifying a spell in real-time as you see it cast. Even though the player is rolling a d20, the character has no real agency. If the roll fails, it's because something didn't happen offscreen at some unspecified time in the past. In short, the roll is dissociated. This makes failure feel arbitrary and success feel unsatisfying. Compounding this issue, of course, is the inherent subjectivity of Knowledge DCs, which I've brought up before.

All that aside, rolling a Knowledge check to know a secret runs into logical issues. When you succeed in a Knowledge check to know something, it's presumed that you learned it at some point in your studies or adventures. When the knowledge is generic, it matters little where you learned it. But when your character knows something secret and specific, it does raise the question of how you know it. A forgotten tome? An old association? Oral tradition never entrusted to the page? The possible answers have implications for characterization, roleplaying, and worldbuilding. But Knowledge checks are dissociated from the world and the characters. Sure, you could invent explanations after the fact -- but then, why roll in the first place?

I have quite a bit more to say about "railroading", but it will have to wait for another post.

[Andor13]

The lack of existing precludes wanting.

Players get surprised by their characters all the time, if they actually give them enough head space. It's like when an Author says "Well I meant this to happen but character 3 wouldn't sit still for it, and I ended up go going where he took me." You can always tell the difference between a book where the characters do what the plot demands and one where they do what they needed to do, and I much prefer the latter.

Of the last half dozen characters I've played, the one I was enjoying the most ended up retiring early, even though I wanted to keep playing him. But he'd finished his arc, and had better things to do with his time then wander around the country looking for trouble. *shrug* The party still gets mileage out of saying they know him though, he's well regarded in the area. (I'm a bit surprised he didn't get turned into a villain, honestly, since part of why he left was to take care of an adopted daughter with a slight case of lycanthropy.)

[Nifft]

The lack of existing precludes wanting.

Your Literature tests must have been easy to grade.

[heavyfuel]

Even without crafting and shopping though you shouldn't be opposed to giving players what they need. In many campaigns, the PCs are championing the cause of one god or another, so it would be in their best interests to steer them towards good tools for the job. Making sure John Swordfighter and Bill Hammercleric find a decent sword and a hammer is the least they can do.

Sure, if it's that kind of campaign and a literal god wants you to succeed. But then it's not really "random" treasure, which is my point.


It seems that you agree with me after all.

I do. Somewhat.



I'm not sure how seriously to take this question. Surely you're not suggesting that I should abandon the system because I disagree with the implementation of one minor mechanic.

You shouldn't. But houserule it away then. I'd be pretty pissed if my investment in a skill was handwaved because the DM thinks that skill is boring.


It is not like that, because the mechanics involved are very different.

Not that different, really. I invested in a skill and I expect to be rewarded if this skill comes into play. If I take Craft (Basket weaving) and I max it with 23 ranks + Int, I don't expect it to be useful, but there happens to exist a basket weaving competition, I expect to win whatever prize they are offering.



Players "invest" in knowledge skills:
- To identify monsters.
- To activate Knowledge Devotion.
- To qualify for prestige classes.

Sorry, but no. Spending skill points is an investment in itself. Knowing about the world is important, and if they spend skill points, they should be accordingly rewarded.




I disagree. Not every obstacle is a challenge. In this case, the obstacle is overcome trivially.

Not necessarily a triviality. Maybe hiring someone isn't something so straightforward, or any number of reasons the circumstances might impose.



The cost is negligible. The PHB lists the cost of a "trained hireling" as 3 sp/day. The examples given include "scribes" and other skilled professions requiring specific skill ranks.

Trained hireling often means 4 ranks and 10 int. That's not much. If it's a really tough question (DC 30), you need to hire someone of at least level 10 for them to have a reasonable chance of knowing. That's not an easy task.


Your Literature tests must have been easy to grade.

Yup.

[Telonius]

The party Bard can usually get a discount with a sufficiently high Charisma check on the attractive assistant librarian. (I believe fantasy-world libraries are required by law to have at least one).

[Deophaun]

Players get surprised by their characters all the time, if they actually give them enough head space. It's like when an Author says "Well I meant this to happen but character 3 wouldn't sit still for it, and I ended up go going where he took me." You can always tell the difference between a book where the characters do what the plot demands and one where they do what they needed to do, and I much prefer the latter.
You are going far afield to miss the point.

Your Literature tests must have been easy to grade.
If I believed the characters existed, I would have been of more interest to the psychology department.

And it's just a stupid green light. Stop making anything of it.

[BassoonHero]

You shouldn't. But houserule it away then.
You may recall that I have advocated for this on several occasions, including this thread.


I'd be pretty pissed if my investment in a skill was handwaved because the DM thinks that skill is boring.
Of course. Communication is critical. If one of my players intended to take ranks in a Knowledge skill with the impression that it would have any substantial mechanical impact (other than Knowledge Devotion, etc), I would caution them against it. If a player is surprised because they have a different idea from the DM about the scope or function of their abilities, then communication has broken down, and the situation should be remedied.


Sorry, but no. Spending skill points is an investment in itself. Knowing about the world is important, and if they spend skill points, they should be accordingly rewarded.
I agree completely, which is why I don't think that Knowledge should be a skill at all. From the perspective of player investment, the question of whether Knowledge skills should be used for library research is almost completely irrelevant, because it's a marginal benefit in a situation that is unlikely to come up. From a mechanical perspective, Knowledge skills are trap options, like Skill Focus. Players will not be rewarded according to their investment in Knowledge skills unless the DM goes far out of their way to offer such rewards.

Knowing about the world is important. It's an important way for a character to be involved in the setting. It's good for (as I keep repeating) characterization, roleplaying, and worldbuilding. The fact that such an important concept is tied to a skill that is mechanically poor and often nonsensical is, in my view, a design flaw. The same applies to most uses of Craft, Profession, and Decipher Script. Characters shouldn't be forced to choose between useful skills like Use Magic Device and interesting characterization.


Not necessarily a triviality. Maybe hiring someone isn't something so straightforward, or any number of reasons the circumstances might impose.

Trained hireling often means 4 ranks and 10 int. That's not much. If it's a really tough question (DC 30), you need to hire someone of at least level 10 for them to have a reasonable chance of knowing. That's not an easy task.
I think that in replying directly here I would substantially repeat the last section of my previous post.

[Thurbane]

From a mechanical perspective, Knowledge skills are trap options, like Skill Focus. Players will not be rewarded according to their investment in Knowledge skills unless the DM goes far out of their way to offer such rewards.

I don't know that I agree with this.

I've DM'd, and played in, many, many adventures (both pre-published and homebrew) where "If the PCs make a Knowledge (X) skill check, DC X, then they blah blah blah..." can reveal a vital, sometime TPK preventing, piece of information.

I would not call that a DM going far out of their way, at all.

I believe Knowledge skills offer a great way to add flavour, individualize characters, and provide DMs a fantastic tool to provide players with pieces of info that can advance the story/adventure and add fluff to a setting.

My 2 coppers, anyway.

I do, however, feel there is some skill bloat, and things like Knowledge (local)/Gather Information and Knowledge (arcana)/Spellcraft should be bundled into one skill.

[Deophaun]

From a mechanical perspective, Knowledge skills are trap options, like Skill Focus. Players will not be rewarded according to their investment in Knowledge skills unless the DM goes far out of their way to offer such rewards.
This is unfortunately true. Knowledge skills are supposed to be a justification for OOC knowledge and to lower the gap between people with system mastery and those without. As such, hitting the DC should give you the most iconic (which is also often the most important) information first, such as that a banshee's wail will kill those who hear it. Run that way, it's invaluable. Instead, what you often get is "banshees are incorporeal." Thanks. I could see that. Or maybe not even that: "This thing is called a banshee." Great. Now I can tell everyone what killed us. Skill points well spent!

The solution would have been to be precise in what information you get at what DC. However, when they experimented with that in 4e, we got "Nature DC 15: Bears #$%^ in the woods." Thanks. Again.

[Telonius]

This is unfortunately true. Knowledge skills are supposed to be a justification for OOC knowledge and to lower the gap between people with system mastery and those without. As such, hitting the DC should give you the most iconic (which is also often the most important) information first, such as that a banshee's wail will kill those who hear it. Run that way, it's invaluable.

As far as I can tell, that's how it's supposed to be run.


In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

"This thing is a banshee" is not generally useful. "This thing has a wail that can kill you," is.

There definitely are Knowledge skills that are almost always traps. History, Architecture, and Nobility are skills that you either invest in 5 ranks for synergy if you're trying to optimize a particular skill, or you ignore them entirely. Geography, you take 5 if you want the synergy, 8 if you're looking to go into Horizon Walker, or head over to the local cartographer's shop.

[Deophaun]

As far as I can tell, that's how it's supposed to be run.
In theory, theory and practice are the same.

[Telonius]

In theory, theory and practice are the same.

Might be just my experience, but in practice getting a useful piece of information for a passed check is how it's always worked.

[Deophaun]

Might be just my experience, but in practice getting a useful piece of information for a passed check is how it's always worked.
I have way too many of the "it's an ethereal filcher" type for me to grow jaded and I started just taking that as "look it up in the book." 'Cause as you said, it's supposed to be useful information. And this was a bigger problem because I am the kind that will lay out the stuff that will most likely kill you first, which I thought freed me up to put a bunch of custom, lethal-if-handled-incorrectly monsters in my campaign. Unfortunately, experience with the other GMs kinda convinced the players of Knowledge's uselessness, so no one had any idea.

But good on your group.

[King of Nowhere]

It really depends on the campaign and the DM. In the campaign I DM, knowledge skills are rarely used; I admit it as a fault of mine.

In the campaign where I am a player, they get used all the time, and often they are really helpful. Just off the top of my head, we once had a riddle going "where the dead man's hand grabs the tomato" in an underwater maze, and we were absolutely baffled by it, until the wizard made a knowledge (nature) check and identified a particular specimen of coral as being called "dead man's hand" and another as "sea tomato". Many times the wizard's knowledge checks have provided important clues to advance the plot or solve problems at hand.

The main plot is related to a set of chests; they are actually portals to extraplanar spaces where a powerful creature is locked (one for each chest). they are opened by pronouncing the name of the creature therein. Finding that name requires research. Once inside, you are subjected to a bunch of trials, and the epic magic of the chests make magic mostly useless; in fact, trying to bypass challenges by magic is often detrimental. After going in the first chest mostly blindly, and still managing to wing it very well, we wanted more informations on the next chests. Hence libraries.
Finding that those chest exist is fairly easy. finding out the name of the creature contained, anything that could reveal if it is actually wise to release it, and especially how the trials therein may work, is the real problem; especially since the chests were made 3 millennia ago and many of them have never been opened. So, it's actually more of a case of puzzling out clues, as no book is likely to provide direct information.

Incidentally, since many of those chests were owned by nobility, both knowledge (history) and knowledge (nobility) may turn out useful.
No theoretical assumption survives first contact with the actual campaign

[heavyfuel]

Knowing about the world is important. It's an important way for a character to be involved in the setting. It's good for (as I keep repeating) characterization, roleplaying, and worldbuilding. The fact that such an important concept is tied to a skill that is mechanically poor and often nonsensical is, in my view, a design flaw

It's not mechanically poor. Just because there aren't explicit rules on every single situation a Knowledge test might be called for, it doesn't mean it's mechanically poor. Much like diplomacy, knowledge skills are meant to have their specific effect determined by the DM. Though let's avoid the discussion on Diplomacy by RAW. We all know it's broken, no need to mention it.

I can think of plenty of situations where knowledge checks have been used to do things other than identifying monsters, knowledge devotion bonus, and PrCs. Knowledge skills are a tool, and it's up to the DM to use these tools in interesting ways.


I don't know that I agree with this.

I've DM'd, and played in, many, many adventures (both pre-published and homebrew) where "If the PCs make a Knowledge (X) skill check, DC X, then they blah blah blah..." can reveal a vital, sometime TPK preventing, piece of information.

I would not call that a DM going far out of their way, at all.

I believe Knowledge skills offer a great way to add flavour, individualize characters, and provide DMs a fantastic tool to provide players with pieces of info that can advance the story/adventure and add fluff to a setting.

My 2 coppers, anyway.

I do, however, feel there is some skill bloat, and things like Knowledge (local)/Gather Information and Knowledge (arcana)/Spellcraft should be bundled into one skill.

Could not agree more, especially with the emboldened part

[BassoonHero]

I believe Knowledge skills offer a great way to add flavour, individualize characters, and provide DMs a fantastic tool to provide players with pieces of info that can advance the story/adventure and add fluff to a setting.
Remove the word "skills", and I agree with you 100%. In fact, I believe that the implementation of Knowledge as a skill is detrimental to those goals.

I don't have a complete writeup yet, but I'm envisioning a system where characters would choose one or two "backgrounds" with minor mechanical impact from a list of a dozen or so. The Knowledge, Profession, and Craft skills would be replaced by the Scholar, Professional, and Artisan backgrounds. There would be no skill ranks or skill checks. You could buy an extra background for, say, the cost of a skill trick.

These backgrounds wouldn't be competing for resources with useful skills. Every character would have a couple, and they would serve to differentiate characters while providing a wide variety of exposition and fluff hooks. They might also come with very minor abilities; for example, the Survivalist background might allow the character to get along in the wild (in lieu of a DC 10 Survival check).

[Svata]

Players get surprised by their characters all the time, if they actually give them enough head space. It's like when an Author says "Well I meant this to happen but character 3 wouldn't sit still for it, and I ended up go going where he took me." You can always tell the difference between a book where the characters do what the plot demands and one where they do what they needed to do, and I much prefer the latter.

Of the last half dozen characters I've played, the one I was enjoying the most ended up retiring early, even though I wanted to keep playing him. But he'd finished his arc, and had better things to do with his time then wander around the country looking for trouble. *shrug* The party still gets mileage out of saying they know him though, he's well regarded in the area. (I'm a bit surprised he didn't get turned into a villain, honestly, since part of why he left was to take care of an adopted daughter with a slight case of lycanthropy.)

Absolutely this. Last week, my cleric was so incredibly worried about things going on in the campaign (and the fact that he'd been personally visited in a vision by a manifestation of his deity) that I was actually on the verge of an anxiety attack. (I mean, I do have GAD, which probably doesn't help things but still.) Characters can absolutely take on a life of their own after a while.

[Psyren]

If I believed the characters existed, I would have been of more interest to the psychology department.

And it's just a stupid green light. Stop making anything of it.

"Fictional characters can have motivations/desires" doesn't make you insane though, it makes you sane.

Not that believing the opposite makes you crazy of course... it just means your writing/DMing might be, well, not that great.

[Svata]

You are going far afield to miss the point.

If I believed the characters existed, I would have been of more interest to the psychology department.



There's a difference between existing and "having wants and motivations"

[heavyfuel]

There's a difference between existing and "having wants and motivations"

Don't be silly! Fictional characters are only ink on paper or pixels on a screen. They don't have the necessary brain matter. (Do I really need blue text there?)

[Svata]

I'm going to go find a void and scream into it for a while, thanks.

[Deophaun]

There's a difference between existing and "having wants and motivations"
Indeed there is. If you do not have wants or motivations, you can still do other things, like flow downhill or be fused with others to generate heavier matter.

If you do not exist, however, then you cannot do anything, including having wants and motivations.

[Nifft]

I'm going to go find a void and scream into it for a while, thanks.

You're not really screaming unless I can hear you. You may think that you feel better, but you don't really, because the screaming isn't real.

The void is real, though. I checked last week.

[King of Nowhere]

the funny thing about humans and the things we make up is, after a while they start existing and take on a life of their own. they only exist in oour mind, but they affect the real world. "Show me one molecule of justice", many here will recognize that quote. and yet justice shapes our lives much more thann a lot of things that are more real.

So, imaginary characters exist and have motivations. they impact our lives.

[Deophaun]

the funny thing about humans and the things we make up is, after a while they start existing and take on a life of their own. they only exist in oour mind, but they affect the real world. "Show me one molecule of justice", many here will recognize that quote. and yet justice shapes our lives much more thann a lot of things that are more real.

So, imaginary characters exist and have motivations. they impact our lives.
Justice is method and behavior. As such it exists.

I'm going to repeat: what a character wants does not matter because a character doesn't actually exist and so cannot actually want anything. It is player wants that matter. Confusing the two is going to make you think that the DM adjusting the world for his players is the same as the world adjusting for the characters. That this is a source of controversy is amusing.