Skills and skill levels for building an army, intelligence service, bureaucracy

[Icelander]

I deeply enjojy such fiction as the 1632-series, the Emberverse and the Belisarius-series. In each of them, we have a changing world, collapsing or threathened old societal structures and hyper-competent protagonists responding to the situation by creating new institutions in a very short time.

Now, I obviously realise that the capabilities of the protagonists are skewed significantly toward the 'heroic' end of the human range. In some cases, not only the principal protagonist, but everyone they ally with demonstrate one-in-a-thousand-years levels of competence in a wide range of different disciplines.

That, however, is not a problem. I'm already setting the game in a world where heroes are more heroic, villains more villainous and the elite are more elite. In game terms; courage, conviction, expertise, accomplishment, repute and renown tend to bring with them supernatural gifts, accelerated learning and other larger-than-life talents.

What I'm interested in exploring is rather how what skills are necessary for the rapid building and expansion of militaries, intelligence organisations or civil bureaucracies and how high the levels needed for extremely rapid build-up are in GURPS terms.

For example, the skill of choosing good subordinates on short acquintanceship is obviously vital to anyone looking to do this. Would that use Administration? Leadership? Psychology (Applied)? Intelligence Analysis? Politics?

One PC in the campaign has spent the past two months of game time as the Viceroy of Purple Reign, a powerful trade corporation, mercenary company and privateer fleet in a foreign land where they are employed to help the local forces defend against an invanding army. Before that, he had some two months of preparation time as he visited the area for a few weeks and left some underlings behind for six weeks before coming back with the full force of Purple Reign.

The locals are what remains of a once might empire, but their lands now hold less than a million people (out of five million which they controlled a bare two years ago), less of half of which are fed or employed, and their armed forces are around 50,000, mostly poorly equipped militia. Even worse, the best troops belong to one of a dozen competing factions for ultimate power once the war is over and cooperate only while the invaders represent a worse threat.

Said PC arrived there commanding a 1,000 elite and loyal troops of the PCs' own mercenary forces, a 1,000 other mercenaries of good quality and some 3,000 sailors and marines on their own ships, mostly loyal and competent men. Locally, they had a factor in the person of the second-in-command of a consolidated guild of potters, glazers, glassblowers, weavers, bronzesmiths and other craftsmen and artisans (the Hegemony of Artisans), which has for the last sixteen years kept order in their part of the city* and some three hundred local 'militia'** who have spent the past four months being trained by Purple Reign marines to be full-time soldiers.

The PC, Ankhapet Si'Hamat, is a Persian-esque aristocrat who after being exquisitely educated prefered the company of his uncles and cousins of the desert tribes. He's a mounted archer, a scholar, a sorcerer and a born politician with high ideas about his own importance and an amibition the size of several continents.

He's busily trying to establish a cult of personality around himself and since he can lay down a storm of enchanted arrows in battle that make as much difference as several regiments of troops, he'd succeeding fairly well in that. Of course, slaying two dragons in full view of tens of thousand of people on his introduction to the locals didn't do him any harm.

He's a polymath, with fairly Julius Caesar-esque capabilities for mastering most anything he sets his mind to learn. In terms of skills, he has a lot of scholarly skills at 16-18, such as Thaumatology, Theology, History, Geography, Expert Skill (Political Science) and, of course, Writing, Literature and Poetry. He also has Mathematics, Architecture and Engineering at similar levels, not to mention Tactics and Operations. And he has Diplomacy -18, Propaganda -17 and Intelligence Analysis -16. Not to mention that he has Administration, Leadership and Strategy at skill 19 and Politics and Public Speaking at 20.

Coupled with Attractive, Charisma 2, Status 4 and Voice, he can maybe even overcome being a foreigner in a xenophobic land, especially since he can speak a little of the local lingo and is quite familiar with their culture, not to mention being from a neighbouring country which is not perceived as being all that savage or barbaric, all things considered.

He's also got a small circle of talented advisors, such as an alchemist and an artilleryrist to mastermind his plans in the field of alchemy, weapons design and technology, who are around skill 18-24 in their various fields. And he has a military chief of staff with Administration (Military) -18, Intelligence Analysis (Military) -18 and Leadership -18, in addition to solid 15+ in most other military skills.

Finally, the financier responsible for keeping the operation solvent and negotiating with foreign merchants, finance ministers and mercenary lords is a PC with skill 20+ in most everything he'll roll against, up to skill 25 in Merchant and Finance. And the herald and chief spymaster is a PC too, with Charisma 3, Cultural Adaptability, Empathy, Fashion Sense, Language Talent, Photographic Memory and Voice; not to mention skill 15+ in all the necessary skills and skill 18 in Administration, Intelligence Analysis and Propaganda, as well as Current Affairs (Politics) -20, Politics -21 and Public Speaking -21.

Most of these characters have decent Teaching too and some of them have Body Language and/or Detect Lie. The chief of counterintelligence has both Body Language and Detect Lie at skill -19. None of them, however, has Psychology (Applied) at any high level, except the spymaster who has -15 (-18 when he can converse with subject).

I'm wondering how fast these few extremely capable characters, aided by the officers and men of their own mercenaries, could create local institutions and train local people. Veterans are widely available, but there are some legal restrictions on obtaining them. Assume that no more than a thousand already serving military veterans can be obtained.

How swiftly can units of organised military personnel, whose loyalty they can somewhat trust, be available to them?

I'm thinking that their initial material would be the 300 chosen artisan 'militia'-men, a thousand experienced street fighters from a friendly revolutionary/criminal organisation, most of them former slaves (and 200 of them former gladitators), combined with some 500 prime veterans chosen among 50,000 men as leaders, instructors and elite troops. Another 500 broken-down veterans useful as instructors or garrison, but not capable of marching 20 miles per day.

Add some 200-500 shepherd/bandits*** and their families who weren't serving in the local military (because they were too clever to be rounded up), but jump at the chance of regular pay.

How long to turn these people into real military units? What skill rolls ought I make? Who makes them?

And how fast can they grow an intelligence network? Plenty of out-of-work spies and assassins around, but how fast can they be vetted?

*After the civil wars broke out.
**While they were never full time, they still do represent picked men out of security forces who have spent 16 years defending hearth and home in a city which has been at war, wracked by riot and riven by gangs for almost two decades. These chosen three hundred are those who decided that they liked fighting more than craftsmanship, when the push came to shove, and were chosen by veteran soldiers as the best of some thousand volunteers.
***They could get more, but this represents choosing only those with skill at arms, experience of skirmishing or at least good potential.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Icelander

For example, the skill of choosing good subordinates on short acquintanceship is obviously vital to anyone looking to do this. Would that use Administration? Leadership? Psychology (Applied)? Intelligence Analysis? Politics?

Psychology (Applied) with the main job skill as an assisting roll (probably Soldier for soldiers, PS (Clerk) or Administration for bureaucrats, Armoury for swordsmiths). I see Administration as for dealing with bureaucracies, Intelligence Analysis as long-term and based on diverse sources, and Leadership and Politics as driving your personal relationships with individuals rather than what they do when you aren't around. Leadership might make someone work harder and more carefully, but not change their competence and personality.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Psychology (Applied) with the main job skill as an assisting roll (probably Soldier for soldiers, PS (Clerk) or Administration for bureaucrats, Armoury for swordsmiths). I see Administration as for dealing with bureaucracies, Intelligence Analysis as long-term and based on diverse sources, and Leadership and Politics as driving your personal relationships with individuals rather than what they do when you aren't around. Leadership might make someone work harder and more carefully, but not change their competence and personality.

Hmmm... that seems to make Psychology (Applied) more important for historical conquerors than most of their other skills. Having Psychology (Applied) at -18 would allow you to almost unerringly pick good tacticians, trainers, tax collectors, administrators, bureaucrats, etc. By contrast, being good at Tactics, Administration or Accounting only makes a difference of +1/-1, with +2/-2 on a critical. In fact, by electing not to roll against the supporting skill, you could even select the best people without knowing a single thing about their area of expertise, which seems to be rather odd.

I'd want skill in the field you are selecting for competence in to matter more than that. Psychology (Applied) might be very good for estimating whether someone is trustworthy in personality, but it should not be able to tell you whether he has any skill at his job.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Icelander

For example, the skill of choosing good subordinates on short acquintanceship is obviously vital to anyone looking to do this. Would that use Administration? Leadership? Psychology (Applied)? Intelligence Analysis? Politics?

Sagatafl often has similar Skills and mechanics to GURPS.

There, I'd use Psychology: Practical as the main roll, quite possibly with a Complenetary Skill roll for some other skill. They have a more powerful effect than in GURPS, if successful, so I'd only allow one skill used, with a penalty (a modified RD) if the skill isn't very appropriate, if it's a bit far-fetched for the actual current usage. In some cases, with some characters, Theology: Socialism might make a good CSR, for instance.

The one exception is if the character being evaluated is psychologically unusual, including but not limited to psychological disorders.

In such cases, the evaluator shouldn't be able to get good results with merely layman's rule-of-thumb psychology, but ought to have a formal and comprehensive "theory of the mind", as represented by Psychology: Theoretical (which shouldn't exist in most past societies, or at best in a very primitive and gimped form, represented in GURPS by slapping a TLx onto it, e.g the TL3 societies didn't know beep about the Human mind).

Psychology: Practical can still be used, but ought to be massively penalized.

One way of being psychologically unusual is to be starkly more intelligent than the norm, which presumably many of the PCs and NPCs in your campaign are. You'd think that exceptionally intelligent individuals always have an easy time understanding each other's reactions, but that's not always so, e.g. due to very different life experiences, especially in the formative years. That's why Psychology: Theoretical, or whatever GURPS' analogous mandatory specialization is called, can be of use.

Some serious psychological disads may also be dangerously easy to overlook if you use Psychology: Practical instead of Psychology: Theoretical. That's another pitfall. The Practical version is safer to use if you can be abslutely sure that everybody is at least reasonably sane, and many people with serious psychological disorders spend a lot of time trying to "pass" as healthy. It's a common misunderstanding that everybody with a mental disease is parading it cheerfully in front of everybody, "look at me, there's something wrong with me!"

That can be due to the desire to fit in and be accepted, or simply needing to find a job, to find gainful employ in the social structure to avoid starvation or at least avoid missing out on basic niceties.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Hmmm... that seems to make Psychology (Applied) more important for historical conquerors than most of their other skills. Having Psychology (Applied) at -18 would allow you to almost unerringly pick good tacticians, trainers, tax collectors, administrators, bureaucrats, etc. By contrast, being good at Tactics, Administration or Accounting only makes a difference of +1/-1, with +2/-2 on a critical. In fact, by electing not to roll against the supporting skill, you could even select the best people without knowing a single thing about their area of expertise, which seems to be rather odd.

I'd want skill in the field you are selecting for competence in to matter more than that. Psychology (Applied) might be very good for estimating whether someone is trustworthy in personality, but it should not be able to tell you whether he has any skill at his job.

I agree with Polydamas that it's an important skill. While it's good that the spymaster PC has it (although it probably ought to be higher, since he isn't always getting the Empathy bonus), I think the leader PC also ought to have it.

As for using it for an evaluation, I don't envision it working as any kind of "Sherlock Scan" ability, where you can just "know". I'm thinking it's used as the basis for an interview with the person, quite possibly a "covert" interview where the interviewer is trying to conceal the purpose of the interview from the subject, maybe even masking it as everyday conversation. Of course that means a penalty. It also takes time. And it can tax the patience of the subject, especially if he feels he's being judged, which most people find uncomfortable.

If you want to make the supporting skill more important, you could give a larger penalty to Psychology (Applied) and then also award a larger bonus from the CSR, maybe double the normal bonus.

Or you could be more hardcore and use the roll-for-the-lowest-of -principle. That way, if the character has Leadership 14 and Psychology (Applied) 17, he rolls for 14.

Or you could turn it around, and roll for the other skill, but with an optional CSR for Psychology (Applied). Or if legal, make the CSR mandatory.



Also, contemplate the rarity of 17/18/19 skills in world demographic terms. These PCs and NPCs in your campaign are true masters. And in my opinion, GURPS is wrong in not allowing great skill to make a larger difference than what you outline: +/- 1, or +/-2 on a critical.

I think, and I am obviously trying to reflect that in Sagatafl's mechanics, that the truly skilled ought to be able to perform really well, achieving the equivalent of +/-4 or 5 or sometimes even more, on GURPS' scale.

From having read the Mass Combat rules (buth the 3E Compendium II ones, and the new PDF), but not actually played them out, it seems to me that brilliant captains and generals aren't able to achieve results that are at all proportional to their brilliance. Right from the first time I read the PDF, possibly even earlier with the Compendium version, I sat there and wondered "why can't genius strategists kick more butt than that, achieve more with smaller forces?"

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'd want skill in the field you are selecting for competence in to matter more than that. Psychology (Applied) might be very good for estimating whether someone is trustworthy in personality, but it should not be able to tell you whether he has any skill at his job.

In real life you can't separate those, however. I didn't say that Psychology (Applied) was the best way to judge expertise, but I did say that it was the right skill to decide “can I trust him? Is he the sort of person who tends to do well at this? Will he work well with his colleagues?” One might use skill X, or Current Affairs, or Research, or a Contact to judge someone's competence at skill X.

And of course, if none of the politically acceptable candidates has more than Tactics-12, or the would-be-treasurer is a sociopath with the technique Acting (Seeming Honest)-20, that Psychology-18 may not help you chose brilliant tacticians and trustworthy bureaucrats.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

There, I'd use Psychology: Practical as the main roll, quite possibly with a Complenetary Skill roll for some other skill. They have a more powerful effect than in GURPS, if successful, so I'd only allow one skill used, with a penalty (a modified RD) if the skill isn't very appropriate, if it's a bit far-fetched for the actual current usage. In some cases, with some characters, Theology: Socialism might make a good CSR, for instance.

This is for evaluating psychological suitability and trustworthiness, not for professional competence?

I think I'd prefer to roll seperately for those two, as they'd have a tendency of being very different. For one thing, considerably more than half of potential recruits will have an inconvenient loyalty to one faction or another. Many of them may even have differing public and private loyalties, in the intrigue-filled atmosphere of a fallen empire which spent three centuries in decadence and noble rivalry before being torn apart by religious- and class-based civil warfare.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

One way of being psychologically unusual is to be starkly more intelligent than the norm, which presumably many of the PCs and NPCs in your campaign are.

Well, the majority of people in the campaign world are fairly normal, with the distribution of exceptional people staying mostly close to realism. It's only that the upper bounds of exceptionalism are sharply increased, so that people with drive and ambition can rise much faster and further in this world than in ours.

All in all, I'd guess that maybe half of the people who in our world would be talented experts are instead varying degrees of extraordinarily talented and the more talent they have, the greater their chances of divine blessings or other supernatural gifts of varying sources.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

That can be due to the desire to fit in and be accepted, or simply needing to find a job, to find gainful employ in the social structure to avoid starvation or at least avoid missing out on basic niceties.

There has been massive famine and umemployment, but the famine started being alleviated four months ago* and for the past month, hoarded treasure has been spent on a huge economic boom, as the various factions are competing for influence by distributing food, the soldiers are being re-equipped and the PC-advised local government** has started huge public work projects to improve sanitation for the refugees and increase the acricultural yield of the newly settled land.

The people are, in many cases, brutalised, famished, sick and emotionally devastated. They are also, however, mostly those of the population who refused to accept life under the invaders and who have managed to survive the past decades. And they are emerging out of a siege situation into a gold-rush style economic boom, as their foreign trade almost instantly jumped back to where it was three centuries ago, which is four times what it was a generation ago and twenty times what it was during the last two years.

There is now enough food in the markets, but that doesn't mean that everyone can afford it. So getting a job is very important. Getting good jobs, with high pay and benefits, is even more important. For people with special skills that are primarily useful to large organisations with particular requirements, it's crucial to convince potential employers that you are both competent and trustworthy. In the case of the experienced spies and assassins who served the fallen nobles of the former regime, this is extremely difficult, but extremely lucrative if you succeed.

The PCs are currently throwing money around at a rate no other faction is matching, partiallly because PCs are always in a hurry, partially because they've determined that as long as they can maintain naval superiority, they'll make up all they spend by winning the war and partially because they have several dragons' hoards and one treasury of a defeated court to burn.

*Through the heroic actions of the PCs and their fleet, actually, which doesn't harm their popularity.
**Which has only been a proper government for around two months and still has large internal divisions in addition to external threats, but is managing so far.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I agree with Polydamas that it's an important skill. While it's good that the spymaster PC has it (although it probably ought to be higher, since he isn't always getting the Empathy bonus), I think the leader PC also ought to have it.

I discover that the leader PC has it at skill 14, which I agree is not high enough. However, he's a polymath and this is a newly acquired skill for him.*

*Having previously been well educated for rulership, as well as having natural talent, but not having experience at it.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

As for using it for an evaluation, I don't envision it working as any kind of "Sherlock Scan" ability, where you can just "know". I'm thinking it's used as the basis for an interview with the person, quite possibly a "covert" interview where the interviewer is trying to conceal the purpose of the interview from the subject, maybe even masking it as everyday conversation. Of course that means a penalty. It also takes time. And it can tax the patience of the subject, especially if he feels he's being judged, which most people find uncomfortable.

So far, interviews have taken place off-screen, but we've established that they are performed by the spymaster PC, the military chief of staff and the chief of counterintelligence.

The two spies both know spells from GURPS Magic that can be useful in weeding out deliberate plants, madmen or liars, but they will not have the time or inclination to use Truthsayer on every recruit and rule out anyone who lies. We'll rather assume that they save that for those in sensitive positions, trusting in their high Body Language and Detect Lie skills for others.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

If you want to make the supporting skill more important, you could give a larger penalty to Psychology (Applied) and then also award a larger bonus from the CSR, maybe double the normal bonus.

Or you could be more hardcore and use the roll-for-the-lowest-of -principle. That way, if the character has Leadership 14 and Psychology (Applied) 17, he rolls for 14.

Or you could turn it around, and roll for the other skill, but with an optional CSR for Psychology (Applied). Or if legal, make the CSR mandatory.

I'm considering some such methods, yes, because I definitely don't want skill in the skills being evaluated being more or less irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Also, contemplate the rarity of 17/18/19 skills in world demographic terms. These PCs and NPCs in your campaign are true masters. And in my opinion, GURPS is wrong in not allowing great skill to make a larger difference than what you outline: +/- 1, or +/-2 on a critical.

These people are masters, yes, but there exist in-setting people with skills up to 25 or even higher, even if they may not be in this part of the world.

There are individual commanders and generals on the other side that are equal to the PCs in tactical and operational expertise. Fortunately, however, the high command is politically chosen and the over-all strategy, while having been sound when it was chosen, will take a long time to change. And the other side lacks good TL4 naval commanders, which the PCs have, and are instead stuck with TL3 infantry commanders trying to default their Tactics, Operations and Strategy.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

From having read the Mass Combat rules (buth the 3E Compendium II ones, and the new PDF), but not actually played them out, it seems to me that brilliant captains and generals aren't able to achieve results that are at all proportional to their brilliance. Right from the first time I read the PDF, possibly even earlier with the Compendium version, I sat there and wondered "why can't genius strategists kick more butt than that, achieve more with smaller forces?"

Actually, someone with skill 18 against a skill 12 is often able to trounce them with a far smaller force.

On the other hand, the foes that the PCs face usually have skill 14-18 at Tactics and Leadership, with Intelligence Analysis, Operations and Strategy at 12-16, being experienced commanders, if perhaps more used to smaller scale warfare. On the other hand, while there are plenty of people with high Administration skill on the other side, the size of the war effort means that each of these is trying to organise logistics for far too many people (and civilians) and they are operating at skill 12-15 rather than the 15-20 they should have.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

In real life you can't separate those, however. I didn't say that Psychology (Applied) was the best way to judge expertise, but I did say that it was the right skill to decide “can I trust him? Is he the sort of person who tends to do well at this? Will he work well with his colleagues?”

In GURPS, though, you use the Leadership skill to organise and manage a team of people. It's not just for battlefield command, it's what a successful manager uses with his own team (as opposed to Administration, which is used for the organisation on a larger scale).

I don't disagree that Psychology (Applied) is important and good for this, but it seems odd that the skill for leading men, which is possessed by NCOs and officers both in official stat blocks (while Psychology (Applied) is generally reserved for confidence men or social engineers), would have no application for choosing good subordinates.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

One might use skill X, or Current Affairs, or Research, or a Contact to judge someone's competence at skill X.

Agreed. Current Affairs seems fairly good for collecting rumours and Intelligence Analysis for interpreting them. For anyone they give even a moderately important position, it will be vital to judge which faction he supports, whether he has dark mysteries useful for blackmail, hidden debts to unfriendly interests, secret allegiances, etc.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

And of course, if none of the politically acceptable candidates has more than Tactics-12, or the would-be-treasurer is a sociopath with the technique Acting (Seeming Honest)-20, that Psychology-18 may not help you chose brilliant tacticians and trustworthy bureaucrats.

There is that, of course.

On the other hand, the 50,000 soldiers present are to some extent self-selected for resourcefulness in staying alive, opposition to the invaders and experience of violence. They are those, out of an initial population of 10 million who still carry arms for their country after more than a decade of unsteady political situation (with all-out civil war in some parts of the country) and two years of being on the losing side of war against a massively rich and magically powerful invading force.

I'm quite sure that among the 10,000 or so career military men there, there will be a decent number of people with good Tactics skill. Even if the leadership of the army was wretched (and politically appointed) sixteen years ago, by now, only those who have genuine talent for getting soldiers to follow them under poor conditions will remain in command of them. Even if some nobles have prestigious names (and stores of wealth) in place of military talent, they'll have good unit leaders doing the actual commanding.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

In real life you can't separate those, however. I didn't say that Psychology (Applied) was the best way to judge expertise, but I did say that it was the right skill to decide “can I trust him? Is he the sort of person who tends to do well at this? Will he work well with his colleagues?” One might use skill X, or Current Affairs, or Research, or a Contact to judge someone's competence at skill X.

Having a couple of Contacts within the craftsmans' "mafia" could be very useful, in particular, I think. Even if that "mafia" is largely loyal to the PC party, it's not perfect, and one of the Contact may be able to warn the PCs about internal grumblings long before real problems arise.



Psychology (Applied) can perhaps also be used to identify or infer minor aptitides, ones that are below the level of resolution in GURPS, but which exist in the real world (and are simulated, although imperfectly, in one or more other systems) and which exert real influence over people, causing them to gravitate towards certain professions and hobbies and away from others. Some characters may have a small aptutude for interpersonal skills, or be well suited for repetetive work (which others function really poorly at), or be really good at coming up with lots of wild ideas very fast, albeit benefitting strongly from working with one or two more grounded partners who can help weed out those few wild ideas that are actually worthwhile. And so forth.

Although if such things aren't simulated in the system (or are simulated but make only a small difference, and are perhaps not even actively simulated for NPCs of "barely-named" grade), that may not be worthwhile.



One thing that skill can help with, when performing an evaluation, as opposed to doing a non-skill-based "intuitive" evaluation, is bias. Bias can come from various forms of intolerance or xenophobia or other prejudice (Sagatafl has a detailed "Animosity" psychological Flaw, with several different variants), or more generally disadvantages and other disabilities can act as noise to "mask" valuable abilities elsewhere in the individual

One of the NPCs in my Ärth setting, Eurielle of the Icy Land, is highly intelligent, and tends to hang out with others who are her equal. But she's gimped in the area of language. Very smart in all other regards, in GURPS terms he functions linguistically as if her IQ was merely 10. So whenever she tries to speak Norse or Latin or Irish, or any language other than her native British, she comes across as unimpressive, sometimes downright incompetent. Vocabulary and grammar is all messed up, and she is self-conscious about it (she's a former Druid - the Druids put great stock in poetry and eluquence) which makes it worse.

So, someone forming an opinion of her may well be unable to look past her distinctly pedestrian use of language (when she isn't speaking British - and even in British she's in no way beyond basic native Fluency, with a vocabulary only barely larger than that of the average person), and to dismiss her as relatively unimportant, whereas in fact, she is a highly competent individual. In GURPS scale terms, she's at least closer to 400 CP "Monster Hunters" grade than to 250 CP "Dungeon Fantasy" grade (one of many such individuals on Ärth - it's a bit like Icelander's setting in that regard), someone about whom you might suddenly have a stark flash of insight: "Wow, this person is really scarily competent. I'm glad she's on my side!"

Or see my thread over in Roleplaying, which Icelander replied to earlier, about people who look like they have a chromosome disorder, and thus are assumed to be of low intelligence, but aren't. That's another example of that.

The skilled approach to evaluation has a non-zero probability of overlooking that kind of bias, even in some cases where the evaluating character isn't aware that he has any bias. Whereas you'll go wrong, with great consistency, if you use unskilled "gut feeling".

Of course, one could make a Technique for Psychology (Applied) to perform such character evaluations or "vettings". It could start at Psychology (Applied)-3 and be improvably to no more than Psychology (Applied)+2. Since it's not dangerous to try, it is my understanding that it should be an Average Technique.