D&D 3.5 and the Sense Motive wall.

[Dezea]

Hey guy, let me first apologize for the poor english about to be diplayed, It's not a language i'm acustomed to. This is my first post on this forum after some years of fanatical Oots reading o/

This is a question for the fellow DM - And player, tho - about a issue i'm encoutering in a game i'm running.

We are 5 buddies playing a classic D&D 3.5 settings, including a War, a Priest, a Rogue and a Wizard. The priest is actually worshiping a god from our Pantheon, wich is kinda...all about money. And Money. And moooore money.

Here is the point : Our fellow priest is being highly bitchy about our rogue endeavior, for kinda obvious reason since the last stated point.

And this translate in game with him doing sense motive check EACH TIME he knows that the rogue is lying. Each - ****ing - times.

And, of course, even with a maximized bluff vs a maximized sense motive, the rogue is obviously not a charismatic as the priest got a strong (And by strong, i mean a 20WIS lvl 1, Skill focused sense motive, priest)

This result in some bad argument where the rogue simply cannot lie, resulting in his possibilities being drasticality reducted, as the priest will outright be highly offensed to the point of absolute sulking if the rogue is being...roguish.

Here is my problem :

First, it seems to me - But i'm asking for advice on this point too - that the priest is absolutely right by RAW to abuse of sense motive. It seems the skill is basicaly designed for these kind of encounter

Second, I'm not quite sure what to think about the whole "My player knows that your lying, so i'm gonna sense motive you to see if my character knows too." In the first, place, if the player didn't know, would his character use sense motive anyway ? Where to put the limit here, knowing that it's not absurd that is character got some doubt about a rogue loyalty, anyway.

Third, clearly the player is being bitchy, but he is being bitchy in what he think is a "It's the way my character is meant to be played" way, going to even apologize to the rogue after the session, saying that "He would like not to be so rude, but he HAS to be". This seems kinda extreme to me, knowing that I don't look highly of character concept totally overshadowing other character concept. You shouldn't be totally stomped on by another character, for flavour reason, every time you come to play.

So, here is my question :

- Is there something to say looking at the rules ? This would obviously be the easy way-out.

- If not, what would you do ? House rules sense motive as something a bit less dominant ? Have a serious talk with the priest ?

Thanks for the advice, my apologize once again for my english, and have a Nice day !

[Brookshw]

Personally I disapprove of players using any social skills on one another including sense motive. Roleplay it out and let the players decide. If the rogue wants to hide things from the cleric I suggest passing notes to avoid the metagaming issues.

[Slipperychicken]

Sense Motive isn't a thing you choose to roll. By default it's supposed to be rolled every time there's something to be noticed about a social situation (including emotions, deceptions, misdirection, conspiracies, and so on), and especially in opposition to lies and deceptions of all sorts.

So yeah, the priest is using it correctly in that sense.

[roguemetal]

Sense Motive doesn't automatically get rolled each time someone lies, the player needs to actively decide they are making a sense motive roll. This goes for both PCs and NPCs.

Tell the rogue not to roll Bluff UNLESS someone calls them out on a lie they tell. This avoids any possibility of metagaming on the Cleric's part, and also on the part of the DM.

If the situation is still happening, then it needs to be resolved IN GAME. This is not an out of game problem, this is an issue between characters. IF the rogue's player has a problem with this, then the rogue probably has a problem with it, and it would be in the rogue's character to confront the cleric about this. A simple spiel about how a white lie would allow combat to be avoided could easily be a convincing point to a LG cleric.

If instead the Cleric is adamant and unyielding to change in game, then the rogue will simply have to rely on other skills while in the presence of the Cleric. They're a rogue, they have plenty, and if they can sneak away from the Cleric they should be able to lie to heart's content.

[Crake]

Sense Motive isn't a thing you choose to roll. By default it's supposed to be rolled every time there's something to be noticed about a social situation (including emotions, deceptions, misdirection, conspiracies, and so on), and especially in opposition to lies and deceptions of all sorts.

So yeah, the priest is using it correctly in that sense.

Pretty much this, but I don't allow sense motive to let you outright know that someones necessarily lying. Unless they beat the DC by a significant amount, I typically go with the line "You feel like something's not right", because the person could be lying, or he could be stalling for time, or he could be withholding information, or he could be under duress, there are plenty of things that could set off a sense motive.


Sense Motive doesn't automatically get rolled each time someone lies, the player needs to actively decide they are making a sense motive roll. This goes for both PCs and NPCs.

Tell the rogue not to roll Bluff UNLESS someone calls them out on a lie they tell. This avoids any possibility of metagaming on the Cleric's part, and also on the part of the DM.

If the situation is still happening, then it needs to be resolved IN GAME. This is not an out of game problem, this is an issue between characters. IF the rogue's player has a problem with this, then the rogue probably has a problem with it, and it would be in the rogue's character to confront the cleric about this. A simple spiel about how a white lie would allow combat to be avoided could easily be a convincing point to a LG cleric.

If instead the Cleric is adamant and unyielding to change in game, then the rogue will simply have to rely on other skills while in the presence of the Cleric. They're a rogue, they have plenty, and if they can sneak away from the Cleric they should be able to lie to heart's content.

I don't agree with this sentiment, as it means using out of character abilities in character. Sometimes a player might not sense an issue when their character most certainly would, and vice versa.

That said, I personally don't advocate the use of social skills on players. So no bluff rolls, sense motive rolls, diplomacy rolls, intimidate rolls (except the in-combat variety) against other players, as a player's disposition is entirely dependent upon their own decisions.

[Captainspork]

When my players use things like sense motive or bluff against each other, I tend to try to be as fair as possible. It sounds like the rogue tries to do "rogue things" at every possible chance, so the priest likely has a circumstance bonus on top of his inherent skills.

In my games I tend to award information based upon how badly the sense motive defeats the bluff. If the sense motive is only a few point higher, I would give the priest information that's slightly ambiguous. If the priest is dominating the rogue every roll, then it seems likely that the priest put a lot of focus into that particular aspect of his character, where the rogue likely did not. So the priest would strongly suspect something is up.

Ultimately, if the priest is focusing on sense motive more than the rogue is on bluffing, then I think you need to reward the priest. Otherwise you're undermining a part of his character.

If the rogue wants to be creative and compromise, he could always try to strike a deal with the priest: 30% as long as he doesn't tell the rest of the party XD

[Dezea]

Thanks for the answers, guys !

Basicaly, what's bugging me is the fact that the priest player ask for a sense motive every time he knows the rogue is lying, thanks to meta game information. Covering this in "Well, it's normal for my character to be doubtful of a rogue".

So, he force a bluff on the rogue, with something like a +9 difference between both of their check, winning almost everytime, and if he were to fail, he would give it a try again after some times anyway. ("YOU ARE SURE YOU DIDN'T DOO SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS ?")

So, this is getting actually quite an OOG problem, as the rogue player is starting feel quite oppressed by a fellow player. Both of them had an IG conversation where the rogue tried to go that "White lies" road, but it's actually a big no-no on the priest side.

I actually like your way of dealing with sense motive Crake, i'm just afraid my priest would interprete this as a "Let's bitch even further to discover the trush" free ticket.

Thanks a lot for the advice anyway !

[Captainspork]

Thanks for the answers, guys !

Basicaly, what's bugging me is the fact that the priest player ask for a sense motive every time he knows the rogue is lying, thanks to meta game information. Covering this in "Well, it's normal for my character to be doubtful of a rogue".

So, he force a bluff on the rogue, with something like a +9 difference between both of their check, winning almost everytime, and if he were to fail, he would give it a try again after some times anyway. ("YOU ARE SURE YOU DIDN'T DOO SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS ?")

So, this is getting actually quite an OOG problem, as the rogue player is starting feel quite oppressed by a fellow player. Both of them had an IG conversation where the rogue tried to go that "White lies" road, but it's actually a big no-no on the priest side.

I actually like your way of dealing with sense motive Crake, i'm just afraid my priest would interprete this as a "Let's bitch even further to discover the trush" free ticket.

Thanks a lot for the advice anyway !

If its an OOG problem then I would try to note passing/texting route first.

[Crake]

Thanks for the answers, guys !

Basicaly, what's bugging me is the fact that the priest player ask for a sense motive every time he knows the rogue is lying, thanks to meta game information. Covering this in "Well, it's normal for my character to be doubtful of a rogue".

So, he force a bluff on the rogue, with something like a +9 difference between both of their check, winning almost everytime, and if he were to fail, he would give it a try again after some times anyway. ("YOU ARE SURE YOU DIDN'T DOO SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS ?")

So, this is getting actually quite an OOG problem, as the rogue player is starting feel quite oppressed by a fellow player. Both of them had an IG conversation where the rogue tried to go that "White lies" road, but it's actually a big no-no on the priest side.

I actually like your way of dealing with sense motive Crake, i'm just afraid my priest would interprete this as a "Let's bitch even further to discover the trush" free ticket.

Thanks a lot for the advice anyway !

It's also worth noting that sure, the rogue is being dodgy, and maybe the priest can tell he's lying, but he has no real way to determine WHAT the rogue's done, unless the rogue just outright tells him. For all the cleric knows, the rogue is planning a surprise birthday party for the cleric, and doesn't want to tell him.

[sideswipe]

give the rogue a wand (or rod) of the spell, Glibness. this will give the rogue enough of a bluff that the cleric will never know. though the rogue will have to have a very good sleight of hand skill check to not be seen using it.

[Psyren]

Sense Motive just tells you that you're suspicious. You still won't learn the truth that way. Simply disbelieving the Rogue is not enough to get him to divulge the truth.

In other words, the exchange should be:

Rogue: {lying through his teeth.}
Cleric: "Bull****."
Rogue: "Believe what you want." *shrug*

And if the Cleric attacks over that, he might run afoul of the party, the law, or even risk falling at that point.

[OldTrees1]

This definitely seems to be an OOC issue. I say issue rather than problem because this forum has a tendency to be too extreme in their BAD PLAYER/BAD DM witchhunts (calm so far).


Unless this is an unusual campaign, your goal should be to get the Rogue and Priest characters to get along well enough to avoid disruptive conflicts while still permitting non-disruptive conflicts if the players find they enjoy that back and forth.

[Red Fel]

Sense Motive just tells you that you're suspicious. You still won't learn the truth that way. Simply disbelieving the Rogue is not enough to get him to divulge the truth.

In other words, the exchange should be:

Rogue: {lying through his teeth.}
Cleric: "Bull****."
Rogue: "Believe what you want." *shrug*

And if the Cleric attacks over that, he might run afoul of the party, the law, or even risk falling at that point.

This. Bluff is a skill that keeps others from knowing you're faking something. Sense Motive sees through Bluff; it doesn't show what you're faking, simply that you're faking.

The problem, I think, is the Cleric's reaction. There's nothing wrong with knowing that the Rogue is lying. Frankly, my parties always know when our Rogue is lying - his lips are moving. The issue is how the Cleric uses that knowledge. If he privately chastises the Rogue when the party is back at camp, fine; that's understandable. If he jumps in while the Rogue is in the middle of Rogue-ing, however, and loudly announces, "That's a lie! You lied, you lying liar," the Cleric is being disruptive. And I don't care if you're playing an LG Cleric of the Goddess of Never Telling Fibs, Not Even Little Ones Like Telling Your Friend in the Hospital That He's Looking Better Every Day, when your character is actively interfering with another character's attempts to play their class, "it's something my character would do" is no longer a defense.

There is a line between "it's what my character would do" and making small RP sacrifices for the good of table cohesion. The happiness and fun of the table takes priority. Clearly, the Cleric's player knows that this is disruptive; he apologizes after the session. The problem is that he keeps having to apologize. At a certain point, that's not sufficient; if you know that your character is a problem, change your character. I can think of no justification, not even Lawful Stupid alignment (which is not a justification anyway) for constantly disrupting the Rogue's Rogue-time over Sense Motive checks.

[Psyren]

@ OP: I link this article by the Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) a lot, but it applies here as well. Specifically, read the part under "Decide to React Differently."


Frankly, my parties always know when our Rogue is lying - his lips are moving.

Ha! :smallbiggrin:

[Dezea]

This. Bluff is a skill that keeps others from knowing you're faking something. Sense Motive sees through Bluff; it doesn't show what you're faking, simply that you're faking.

The problem, I think, is the Cleric's reaction. There's nothing wrong with knowing that the Rogue is lying. Frankly, my parties always know when our Rogue is lying - his lips are moving. The issue is how the Cleric uses that knowledge. If he privately chastises the Rogue when the party is back at camp, fine; that's understandable. If he jumps in while the Rogue is in the middle of Rogue-ing, however, and loudly announces, "That's a lie! You lied, you lying liar," the Cleric is being disruptive. And I don't care if you're playing an LG Cleric of the Goddess of Never Telling Fibs, Not Even Little Ones Like Telling Your Friend in the Hospital That He's Looking Better Every Day, when your character is actively interfering with another character's attempts to play their class, "it's something my character would do" is no longer a defense.

There is a line between "it's what my character would do" and making small RP sacrifices for the good of table cohesion. The happiness and fun of the table takes priority. Clearly, the Cleric's player knows that this is disruptive; he apologizes after the session. The problem is that he keeps having to apologize. At a certain point, that's not sufficient; if you know that your character is a problem, change your character. I can think of no justification, not even Lawful Stupid alignment (which is not a justification anyway) for constantly disrupting the Rogue's Rogue-time over Sense Motive checks.

Thanks, really enjoyed your answer. I always kinda avoided storming trough the rules for "Greater good", always wishing that things would actually fix themselves on common sense but you are definitely right on the "The happiness and fun of the table takes priority.".

(And bonus point for the massive lol I had while reading your answer)

[Segev]

From an IC perspective, given what you've told us, neither PC is necessarily "doing it wrong."

Sense Motive, as others have said, just lets the cleric know the rogue's fibbing. He sees through the rogue's poker face, reads his tell, or otherwise has reason to believe the rogue is not being wholly honest. Conversely, he could tell that the rogue is NOT, in fact, prevaricating if the rogue is telling the truth.

At this point, it seems reasonable that, IC, the priest might think the rogue is lying no matter how well the rogue bluffs. In fact, he might, on a failed sense motive check, think the rogue is lying even if he's telling the truth. "I think you're lying" is something somebody can say even if they don't have a "read" on the person.


The problem, IC, arises if the cleric makes the rogue unable to do his job for the party, or unable to achieve any of his goals. Why would the rogue keep working with a party that gets in his way? Alternatively, why would the party put up with a cleric who keeps interfering with necessary adventuring activities/is driving away the valued party member?

Point out to the players, OOC, that they're going to need to find a way for this to work so that both of their characters can stay with the party. Tension may be okay, if they enjoy playing it, but it is the responsibility of each player to find reason why their character is part of the party and its associated quest. If they cannot, one or both of them needs to change characters to one(s) who can.

If the problem goes deeper, OOC, and the two players just don't get along, then you're out of anything role-playing suggestions can resolve, and into social dynamics of your RL group of players, which is its own kettle of fish.

[Psyren]

You also need to keep the other players from metagaming. If the cleric sees through the rogue's fib, but the other players don't, they shouldn't all leap to the cleric's side just because they saw him roll well. What matters is what their own characters believe.

I know that if my character failed my sense motive, I might be inclined to side with the rogue - especially if I'm playing a character that may be at odds with the cleric, or just stubborn for the sake of stubbornness.

[Segev]

Or even if my character realizes that the rogue is useful and that whatever he's being accused of isn't worth the argument.

[Slipperychicken]

Pretty much this, but I don't allow sense motive to let you outright know that someones necessarily lying. Unless they beat the DC by a significant amount, I typically go with the line "You feel like something's not right", because the person could be lying, or he could be stalling for time, or he could be withholding information, or he could be under duress, there are plenty of things that could set off a sense motive.


Thanks for mentioning it. I was going to add something to this effect, but needed to go somewhere.

I imagine one would typically get results like "you feel like he's leaving something out", "he seems nervous", or "He doesn't seem sincere". I also want to add false-positive sense motive results (i.e. PC thinks NPC is lying when he really isn't) so that PCs don't kill people on a hunch, but I'm unsure how to do it. Maybe PCs would make a secret Sense Motive check against DC 10-15 if they declare OOC suspicion for a sincere NPC's words, then get a false positive if they fail.

[Segev]

Legend of the Five Rings has the Sincerity skill. It is basically used like Bluff in a lot of situations, but it's your ability to sound sincere. So, unlike Bluff, you roll it when you wish to convince somebody that you believe in what you're saying. Even (or especially) if it's true.

The drawback is that you can't actually tell, as a PC who is using Awareness (the Sense Motive equivalent, among other things) against an NPC using Sincerity can't tell if he failed his Awareness check or if the other guy is just being sincere.

Conversely, the target to use Sincerity to convince an NPC is a number set by the GM, not something specific. It's supposed to be ballparked to indicate how suspicious and how little the NPC wants to believe you, but that's all it is: a ballpark.


Thinking about it more on an abstract, game theory level, how do you design a mechanic for telling if somebody is telling the truth when they are and they are trying to use their own skill to persuade you that they are?

It can't be a contested roll anymore, as it would make no sense that the more skilled you are at being sincere, the harder it is to tell you're telling the truth, nor that the better you are at reading somebody, the harder it is for them to honestly convey that they're not lying.

[Crake]

Legend of the Five Rings has the Sincerity skill. It is basically used like Bluff in a lot of situations, but it's your ability to sound sincere. So, unlike Bluff, you roll it when you wish to convince somebody that you believe in what you're saying. Even (or especially) if it's true.

The drawback is that you can't actually tell, as a PC who is using Awareness (the Sense Motive equivalent, among other things) against an NPC using Sincerity can't tell if he failed his Awareness check or if the other guy is just being sincere.

Conversely, the target to use Sincerity to convince an NPC is a number set by the GM, not something specific. It's supposed to be ballparked to indicate how suspicious and how little the NPC wants to believe you, but that's all it is: a ballpark.


Thinking about it more on an abstract, game theory level, how do you design a mechanic for telling if somebody is telling the truth when they are and they are trying to use their own skill to persuade you that they are?

It can't be a contested roll anymore, as it would make no sense that the more skilled you are at being sincere, the harder it is to tell you're telling the truth, nor that the better you are at reading somebody, the harder it is for them to honestly convey that they're not lying.

Sincerity is generally the default stance. When I say I like apples, the general assumption is that I'm being sincere, until proven otherwise. Same goes for this, just assume that what the person says in sincere, until proven otherwise.

It's also worth noting, that you may be completely sincere when you say a red dragon is coming around the corner, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's unbelievable (even if it's true). After all, sincerity simply means YOU believe it's true, doesn't mean it really is, you could just be crazy.

[Deophaun]

After all, sincerity simply means YOU believe it's true, doesn't mean it really is, you could just be crazy.
Why is reality always right? Why can't reality be the crazy one?

[nedz]

The Sincerity idea is interesting, but it could quite easily be subverted into Not Sincere = Lying.

I think that this might be an OOC issue, but its hard to be sure from this distance. Do the two players get on, or not ?

[Segev]

No, the point behind Sincerity is to convince somebody who has reason to doubt your sincerity that you mean what you say. It's identical to Bluff if you're actually lying, and it is otherwise only useful if the other person has reason to doubt you from the get-go.

Even then, it doesn't prevent somebody from being stubborn. "I have determined that you're always lying, no matter how honest and sincere you sound," is a valid stance to take. IT may mean you look like the unreasonable, one, though, if everybody else who is perceiving the conversation is persuaded that the person using Sincerity is actually sincere.


Like I said, if somebody is really good at reading people, and is ambivalent about whether to trust your word or not, the mechanic kind-of falls apart. Convincing him you're sincere when all he's trying to do is read you to tell if you are or not lacks mechanics.

Premise: You are telling the truth; the other guy is trying to tell if you believe what you say.

Situation 1: Your Sincerity beats his Sense Motive; he believes you.
Situation 2: Your Sincerity does NOT beat his Sense Motive. What happens?

If he believes you, then how is that any different than if he couldn't read you well? It doesn't matter how good you are at Sincerity if he'll believe you either way. If he doesn't believe you, that makes even less sense: he's really good at reading people, so since he saw through your skill at being persuasive, he mistakenly thinks you're lying? Why is being GOOD going to make him screw up?

Finally, under what conditions does he mistakenly think you're lying? It should be when he rolls poorly and when you roll poorly, but how do you adjudicate that?

You'd almost need a third stat, some sort of "believability threshold." If both of you fail to hit that, and he beats your roll, he thinks you're lying. If either of you beat it, he believes you, either because your Sincerity beat his Sense Motive, or because he beat your Sincerity AND he recognized the truth of your words when he peered past your cultivated skill at appearing honest to perceive the true honesty behind it. (If you both failed, but he beat your roll, he'd mistake something in your efforts to be persuasive as signs of dishonesty.)

[hymer]

@ OP: We're not given much to work with, but I'm actually on the side of the priest's player here. He's invested in Sense Motive, and the rogue is lying to him. Of course he's going to ask to use his character's particular abilities when they should come into play - i.e. when someone lies to him. If he had a permanent blur effect, and the DM kept forgetting, shouldn't he ask to roll miss chance when he's attacked?
It takes two players to be disruptive here. The rogue knows that he's upsetting the priest by going off and doing illegal things (and he may be annoying the other players as well, hogging the spotlight), and yet he does it anyway. Why shouldn't the priest react?

[Dezea]

The sincerity idea is interresting, tho I try to keep in the boudaries of the rules whenever possible (or sane, wich in a D&D world is sometimes hard to come by). And I could just see how much of a twited mindgame it could become *-*

To answer questions, the two guys are not that close ooc, but keep the talk friendly most of the time and don't seems (At least for the priest, the rogue is slowly starting to get upset) to take the mater too personally.

And, wich is the big problem here, I really don't think that the priest is trying to make the situation go out of control, but genuinely think he is playing it "right".

The two other players are kinda bored at the situation, they found it funny at start, but are now growing more and more impatient each time one of those "Sense motive" moment appears. We had one "Holy **** moment" last time when the wizard, after the rogue stole some goodies and the priest started to make an argument, dominated the priest and made him run naked into the street yelling "Someone get me that broom out of my ass" (French expression, i'd say, might lose a bit to the translation).

Yeah, that's the tension we got here.

Edit : @ Hymer : Problem is, I tend to agree with you on the fact that since the priest invested into his sense motive ability, I have the duty to give him opportunities to use it. The problem being that as much as the priest should have the right to be "Priesty", the rogue should have the right to be ...roguish.

[Segev]

Okay. I know that, if I were playing the cleric and I was that straight-laced and determined to enforce good behavior, I would probably leave the party after the wizard did that to me for nothing more than trying to take the rogue to task.

Ask the cleric why he is still with the party. Ask his player, rather. Ask him if he thinks this is a workable dynamic. It may be that the cleric either needs to accept that the party may be right and he needs to mind his own business, or the cleric's player needs to really stick to the "it's what my character would do" line and have him leave the party, possibly informing the local authorities about the behavior that forced him to do so (i.e. ratting out the rogue and letting the party implicate themselves if they try to cover for him)." The character becomes an NPC, and the player makes a new one who will fit with the party.

I'm not saying the cleric's player did anything "wrong," but it does sound to me like this may not be a character who works with this party. If they were real people, why would he put up with this bad behavior from the rogue and abuse from the party?

I note that I suggest the cleric is the one who might leave because he's the one actually being ganged up on, here, not because I think he's "wrong" in some objective sense. If the rogue were corralled, restrained, and regularly punished for his deeds that he feels are perfectly fine, and the party stood with the cleric in disapproval, I would suggest it be the rogue to leave.

But unless one or both of them can figure out a way for their characters to get along IC, one or both should make new characters, with their PC leaving the party because they don't want to deal with the other one anymore. (Note that "get along" here doesn't have to mean they're fast friends, but it does mean that they have to be willing to not rub their misdeeds in each others' faces AND to realize that the misdeeds of the other might be things best left uninvestigated, if not tolerated.)

[DeltaEmil]

The problem being that as much as the priest should have the right to be "Priesty", the rogue should have the right to be ...roguish.How does the roguish activity of the rogue manifest?

I hope it's not the rogue being roguish by stealing from the party or keeping loot for himself (especially since you're saying that the cleric is a priest of a money-focused pantheon), because then, too bad for the rogue. He should suck it up.

[Dezea]

He actually is more like the good guy rogue, always ready to scout for the party, sharing most the loot he made himself stealing left and right. Clearly not the type to go stealing from his friends pockets.

But yes, he play a stealing-heavy (and I mean by that prolly most of the rich townfolks we've met must be feeling quite lighter now.) kind of rogue.

[NichG]

See, I would argue that if you suspect a lie in or out of character, then you need not roll - you can react as if its a lie. After all, its perfectly possible for someone to decide that something that is completely true is actually a lie.

Conceptually, Sense Motive is the 'defense' against the 'offense' of Bluff. That means that whenever someone wants to 'force' a lie to be taken as true, a Sense Motive check defends someone from being forced to accept the lie as true. If you allow a PC to mechanically use Bluff against another PC, then its only fair to automatically allow the other PC to respond with a Sense Motive check - its the same as allowing someone to automatically gain the benefit of their AC against an attack roll or gain the benefit of Spot against a hidden enemy (requiring these skills to be active is a bad idea, because they're free - a player could just call for a use of all such skills at all times, bogging down the game; its best for the DM to automatically roll them secretly when they would apply).

On the other hand, if you don't permit PCs to use Bluff against other PCs, then similarly you shouldn't permit them to use Sense Motive against eachother either.

The important thing is basically to not create a double standard by 'assuming' that the rogue should always be able to get away with lying or that the priest should always be able to figure out the lies. Either you let the skills tell the answer (in which case its a bidding game - how much does the rogue care about being able to deceive versus how much does the priest care about being able to see through deception?) or you let player roleplay mediate the situation, in which case its totally up to both parties whether to believe eachother or not (and it is quite possible for a skilled player to fool another player, even under the constraint of out of character knowledge - I've seen it happen many times).

Edit: On top of all this, there is the most important consideration which is 'don't be a jerk'. Its fine for the cleric to defend themselves, and defend NPCs they care about from the rogue, but if the cleric's player is getting his jollies by basically foiling the rogue at every turn even when it has nothing directly to do with him, thats being a jerk OOC and 'its what my character would do' is no defense. Similarly if the rogue makes a habit of stealing from PCs or screwing them over, and then hides behind a Bluff check, that can be being a jerk OOC and therefore indefensible. That has nothing to do with rules, and everything to do with good play etiquette. You don't bring a CE necromancer into a party of paladins and LG clerics; you don't bring a paladin into a party of cutthroats and rogues.

[KorbeltheReader]

I don't think you're going to find an adequate in-game solution. You need to talk to your players about this, especially now that's getting in the way of the game for the other players. This is serious; game groups disband over this kind of antics.

Your 2 players need to work out an arrangement so that this conflict is permanently defused, or they need to roll new characters.

[Firechanter]

I think the constant use of Sense Motive is justified, because, as I'm sure your mom told you, "A liar will not be believed". If the Rogue has been caught lying to his Allies(!) before, then it's entirely justified that his word gets scrutinized all the time.

Besides, for me it is a MUCH more problematic behaviour of the Rogue that he lies to his allies, compared to the Cleric trying to keep tabs on him.

Players who try to cheat their party members like to claim "It's what my character would do", but at the same time expect the co-players to ignore all those transgressions and refrain from doing what _their_ characters might want to do when they catch someone cheating them.

[nedz]

I've played characters with annoying traits. They are amusing for a while, but when that changes and starts to grate with the other players I turn it down to quiet. I think that the cleric player needs to do this.

What I don't understand is why a Cleric of the money god is worried about truth and justice, surely he would just want a cut. So what if the thief lies — business is business. :smallsmile:

[Duke of Urrel]

Here are the house rules that I use for Sense Motive skill. In the rules, "you" are a PC, and "I" am the DM.

Unless you are threatened or distracted (that is, engaged in combat), your lie-detection Sense Motive check takes 10 by default. Your opponent’s Bluff check also takes 10 by default. I do not inform you of the result of a granted lie-detection Sense Motive check unless it succeeds.

At any time, I allow you and every other PC in your party to make an elective lie-detection Sense Motive check in place of a granted one that takes 10 by default. Each of you must roll this check instead of taking 10, and if you roll a score that is lower than 10, you must accept it.

Sense Motive checks can have any one of the following three results.


If a creature tells the truth and your elective lie-detection Sense Motive check scores at least 20, you can be confident that that the creature was honest, though it still may have been honestly mistaken in what it told you. If a creature tells the truth and your elective lie-detection Sense Motive check scores less than 20, you must remain in doubt about whether the creature was honest or dishonest.


If a creature lies to you and your granted or elective lie-detection Sense Motive check beats the creature’s Bluff check, you can be confident that the creature was dishonest.


If a creature lies to you and its Bluff check beats your granted or elective lie-detection Sense Motive check, you believe that the creature spoke honestly, though it may have been honestly mistaken in what it told you, and I require you to role-play according to this belief until one of the following things happens.



Your PC disbelieves a lie as soon as you discover evidence that it is false. Nobody can make you believe something contrary to evidence, unless he or she manages to explain away the evidence by means of a very high Bluff check.


Your PC may suspect a lie as soon as you make an elective Sense Motive check to have a hunch that the creature who told you the lie is untrustworthy, and I allow you to make this check after you observe a suspicious creature for one minute. Knowing that a creature is untrustworthy is not the same as knowing that something it has told you is a lie, but it frees you from my requirement to role-play believing every lie that your PC formerly failed to detect. The Sense Motive check to have a hunch, like the Sense Motive check to disbelieve a lie, can be made only once, and if it fails, I still require you to role-play believing that the creature spoke honestly.

[TuggyNE]

What I don't understand is why a Cleric of the money god is worried about truth and justice, surely he would just want a cut. So what if the thief lies — business is business. :smallsmile:

Maybe he's the only follower over level 3 of the DvR 0 Quasi-Deity of Completely Honest Businessmen? :smallwink:

[Dezea]

Maybe he's the only follower over level 3 of the DvR 0 Quasi-Deity of Completely Honest Businessmen? :smallwink:

Had an heavy laugh : D

In fact, it's more the deity of trade, who allow you to absolutely screw the opposite side in a trade, but who will frown at every attempt to get money in another way.

[Firechanter]

I've played characters with annoying traits. They are amusing for a while, but when that changes and starts to grate with the other players I turn it down to quiet. I think that the cleric player needs to do this.


Wait -- the Rogue repeatedly lies and tries to cheat his allies, and the _Cleric_ is annoying and needs to tone it down? wtf?

[Sith_Happens]

What I don't understand is why a Cleric of the money god is worried about truth and justice, surely he would just want a cut. So what if the thief lies — business is business. :smallsmile:

I imagine a Good and/or Lawful cleric of a god of money would place rather much importance on the idea of property rights.


Wait -- the Rogue repeatedly lies and tries to cheat his allies, and the _Cleric_ is annoying and needs to tone it down? wtf?

That seems to be the consensus of the party in question, therefore yes.

[kailkay]

I loathe when people in my games start using skills against one another. It disrupts everything the DM is trying to run so that player A can mess with player B.

There are several options available to the DM in the case mentioned by OP.

First, the DM can punish the ever-loving daylights out of the two instigators. Yes, two. It isn't just the cleric's fault that he is playing his character as a suspicious guy. The rogue is deliberately acting in ways contrary to the cohesion of the party. Punish them via story, mechanics or pizza-buying. Drop dragons on them. Yes, dragons. As in plural.

One, or both players, can roll new characters. Easily accomplished/necessitated if DM slays the current characters by dropping the aforementioned dragons on them.

Party can disband. This is a crappy option, but without action, it is where the game seems to be headed.

DM can take the SM and Bluff checks out of the hands of the players, and rule whether or not the cleric has any actual reason to roll said check.

The rest of the group's time is being wasted as a whole, and the fun is being sucked out of their game, and they all deserve snacks and beverages in recompense. I find in favour of the victimized other players.

[Firechanter]

I must apologize. I re-read all the OP's postings in this thread, and it appears that I have misread a thing or two before.
So in fact the Rogue isn't acting against the party at all (or at least not very much), being called a "Good Guy Rogue". Well in that case, if that means that the Rogue is mostly trying to bluff NPCs, then I agree it's none of the Cleric's business to interfere, and he's being a ****.

Still, the best solution is always to talk about it. The gist of my previous statements remains the same, even if directed at someone else: "it's what my character would do" does not entitle you to be a **** to the other players.

If talking doesn't help, well, then you may have to duke it out ingame. Maybe the rest of the party gives him a Code Red.