Trusting a truth you think is a lie?

[heavyfuel]

What if an NPC is telling the truth, but the player has a reason to believe the NPC is lying?

It seems that the RAW is "you automatically know thruths are true", but that's just silly.

How would you handle these situations?

[Hunor]

In the past, I have set a DC for a Sense Motive check to tell it is true. There may be a formula out there, but I start with a base of 10, then add/subtract modifiers based on how I read the situation. Some sample modifiers:
PC has previous reason for distrust of Target of Sense Motive (TSM): +5
TSM has a reputation for Honesty/Dishonesty: +/- 3
TSM's statement fits with facts as known by PC: -2 or more (up to -5) based upon your judgement
TSM's statement conflicts with facts as known by PC: +2 or more (up to -=) based upon your judgement

Those are just a few possible modifiers, and your judgement as DM is the final call. Basically, If you think the PC has every reason to know a statement is true, even though the player distrusts it, set a very low Sense Motive DC, and vice versa for the opposite situation.

[noob]

joke/ That is horrible to make people able to think they know the guy tells the truth: no npc ever tells the truth and when one believes what he says is true it is because he got mind raped and so should be killed immediately.
If I had a paladin and that the GM said "you understand that NPc is telling the truth" I would preemptively kill him because he is probably the slave of an evil wizard.
So no way to know what the nps believe to be true should exist because else it is clearly someone mind raped as it is completely impossible no matter which universe it is for a normal npc to tell the truth. /joke
I think that no there should not be a way to guess if someone telling the truth is telling the truth because else it kills all the charm of someone lying since by having someone bad at guessing and someone good Players can metagame and think "the one with the low stat believe the npc is not lying as well as the one with a high stat so he is a bluffer".
or think "the one with the low stat believe the npc is lying while the one with a high stat does not so he is not bluffing".

[Aleolus]

There is a simple solution to this. When the group makes a SM check, don't speak in absolutes. Instead of saying that they are/are not telling the truth, say that they seem to be/not to be telling the truth. After all, without magical aid, there is no way to be certain of if someone is being honest or not

[The Viscount]

If they make a Sense Motive check against a statement that is actually true, you as the DM simply say "he seems to be telling the truth."

Just like "you find no traps" could easily mean "there are no traps" or "your check wasn't high enough" your statement could mean that the NPC actually is telling the truth, or it could mean that their check was not high enough to beat their bluff.

Your PC can't really know whether or not the NPC is lying, but if their check is high enough they can have a decent idea that the NPC is telling the truth. That being said, if the PCs think someone is lying, nothing is going to convince them.

[GloatingSwine]

Ok, so if someone is lying, the rules have you covered. He rolls a Bluff check, you roll Sense Motive. If you win, you know whether he's telling the truth or not.

But what if the NPC is telling the truth, but the player has a reason to believe the NPC is lying? Say, the PC failed a previous Sense Motive when someone told him the NPC is evil when he's actually not. Or any other number of reasons.

It seems that the RAW is "you automatically know thruths are true", but that's just silly.

How would you handle these situations?


This doesn't sound like a question that the rules answer, it sounds like a question the players answer. They don't believe this person due to being taken in by a previous deception, how are they going to react to that?

If they insist on rolling sense motive again just tell them (whatever they roll) "he/she is absolutely convinced what he/she's telling you is true".

If as a DM you want to set them on the right track then put in other elements of evidence that corroborate what the new person says and show how the person who previously successfully deceived them is shifty and had reason to lie.

[noob]

Well sentient players(I do not speak of automatons) simply does not wants to trust npcs no matter what you are going to say and in the end they might say that they trust that the npc is telling what he believes to be true and will try to use remove curse and penitence and wish to "cancel the mind rape".
If you tell them that this npc is completely good they will think "Now it is true but he was super infinitely evil before black mage evil wizardington stole all his evil for becoming even more evil and then mind raped him"

[prufock]

But what if the NPC is telling the truth, but the player has a reason to believe the NPC is lying? Say, the PC failed a previous Sense Motive when someone told him the NPC is evil when he's actually not. Or any other number of reasons.
Having an evil alignment does not mean you always lie. So let's revise the statement.

Resolution

NPC #1: NPC #2 always lies. (untrue, but PC fails sense motive vs NPC #1's bluff)

NPC #2: The door to the left is trapped. (the door is trapped, the NPC knows this)

PC (thinking): The door to the left is not trapped. (PC opens door to the left)

[Platymus Pus]

Ok, so if someone is lying, the rules have you covered. He rolls a Bluff check, you roll Sense Motive. If you win, you know whether he's telling the truth or not.

But what if the NPC is telling the truth, but the player has a reason to believe the NPC is lying? Say, the PC failed a previous Sense Motive when someone told him the NPC is evil when he's actually not. Or any other number of reasons.

It seems that the RAW is "you automatically know thruths are true", but that's just silly.

How would you handle these situations?

I tell the truth one moment, but change my mind a few moments later.
Nothing you can do.

[heavyfuel]

I feel like some people are missing the point, so I'll exemplify what I meant:


NPC 1: "Go kill NPC 2 for he's an evil wizard, researching a spell to destroy the world!" - This is a lie, and the PC fails his Sense Motive check.

PC: "Ok"

<at NPC 2's lair>

PC: "NPC 2! I have come to kill you!!!!!!!!!!!"

NPC 2: "What? Why?!!

PC: "Because you'll destroy the world!!!"

NPC 2: "No! This spell will give every puppy a happy life!" - This is true.



How can the PC be convinced of it other than metagaming that he didn't have to roll for Sense Motive?

[Platymus Pus]

I feel like some people are missing the point, so I'll exemplify what I meant:


NPC 1: "Go kill NPC 2 for he's an evil wizard, researching a spell to destroy the world!" - This is a lie, and the PC fails his Sense Motive check.

PC: "Ok"

<at NPC 2's lair>

PC: "NPC 2! I have come to kill you!!!!!!!!!!!"

NPC 2: "What? Why?!!

PC: "Because you'll destroy the world!!!"

NPC 2: "No! This spell will give every puppy a happy life!" - This is true.



How can the PC be convinced of it other than metagaming that he didn't have to roll for Sense Motive?

Well no one said you had to trust your failed sense motive check or even successful ones. Because you don't know if it succeeded sometimes, just that you rolled it.
Being convinced is a decision, not a dice roll. If the wizard planned to give every puppy a happy life his lair likely doesn't look like death itself and is filled with companions that are friendly and non-threatening, even letting you in.
Paying attention to things in general is better than listening to words most times.
And NPC 1 wouldn't necessarily have to be lying there either, just mistaken as it being the truth.

[noob]

Making players roll for sense motive is a bad idea: it is to them say they want to roll it because else when they are in front of a liar they know it and so the check was not needed(even if you roll it behind your screen because players have hearing)

[prufock]

I tell the truth one moment, but change my mind a few moments later.
Nothing you can do.
Technically you can roll a sense motive with a flat DC to get a "hunch" that something is wrong, or to get the feeling someone is trustworthy (such as NPC #2). With two conflicting results, I'd say either the most recent wins out or the player just makes up his own mind.

[heavyfuel]

Making players roll for sense motive is a bad idea: it is to them say they want to roll it because else when they are in front of a liar they know it and so the check was not needed(even if you roll it behind your screen because players have hearing)

I don't ask for Sense Motive checks. They do. Don't your players ALWAYS check for Sense Motive? Like... all the time?

And if you tell me to disregard it when they ask for a check, you're asking me to ignore their investment in the skill, a thing I will not do.


Well no one said you had to trust your failed sense motive check or even successful ones. Because you don't know if it succeeded sometimes, just that you rolled it.
Being convinced is a decision, not a dice roll. If the wizard planned to give every puppy a happy life his lair likely doesn't look like death itself and is filled with companions that are friendly and non-threatening, even letting you in.
Paying attention to things in general is better than listening to words most times.
And NPC 1 wouldn't necessarily have to be lying there either, just mistaken as it being the truth.

The point is not whether they believe NPC1 or not. It's that they DO believe him. And now NPC2 has to make them not believe anymore.

[Platymus Pus]

The point is not whether they believe NPC1 or not. It's that they DO believe him. And now NPC2 has to make them not believe anymore.

Player characters were not NPCs last I checked.
I don't believe NPC1.

[heavyfuel]

Player character were not NPCs last I checked.
I don't believe NPC1.

I'm not asking if you believe him. I'm saying the PC does. The PC and his player have zero reason to be suspicious of him. Both the PC and his believe in NPC1 regardless of your distrust. Maybe if you were playing with the PC, you wouldn't trust NPC1, but you're not.

Now that the PC and his player do believe him, for whatever reason that may be, I need to know what check - not roleplay not anything else - I want a check that other DMs would call for to have the PC no longer believe NPC1 and start believing NPC2

If you don't think this is the kind of situation that requires a check, then say so, and present your point regarding the reason why a check shouldn't be used. However, please stop saying the PC shouldn't believe NPC1 in the first place because that's completely off topic.

[fishyfishyfishy]

In the puppies scenario, the PC is likely to ask for a Sense Motive check when confronted with this new information. Even if they don't, roll it for them anyway. If they succeed then tell them they believe the NPC is telling the truth.

It is then up to the PC to determine what they actually believe, and how they handle the situation from there. Perhaps they give this NPC an opportunity to explain, or perhaps they murder them right there hoping they're doing the right thing. Player agency yo.

[Legato Endless]

I don't ask for Sense Motive checks. They do. Don't your players ALWAYS check for Sense Motive? Like... all the time?

And if you tell me to disregard it when they ask for a check, you're asking me to ignore their investment in the skill, a thing I will not do.



The point is not whether they believe NPC1 or not. It's that they DO believe him. And now NPC2 has to make them not believe anymore.

You can't. Once they've gone down the paranoia spiral, the Players will believe what they want to believe often regardless of what you do within the narrative. That's just part and parcel with running these things. As for giving an in narrative hint, normally you could simply state that the sense motive check makes lying nigh impossible. Say that it doesn't seem like this is a man who lies, or is particularly capable of deception. Give them reams of fluff that downplay the deception angle without actually telling them straight out out of game. Give them some kind of evidence that makes them doubt the previous assertion of the NPC that tricked them. If playing up the reputation angle doesn't work, you could put in some plot device that compels people to tell the truth or whatever, though that's kind of clumsy even as a one time fix.

[Deophaun]

Now that the PC and his player do believe him, for whatever reason that may be, I need to know what check - not roleplay not anything else - I want a check that other DMs would call for to have the PC no longer believe NPC1 and start believing NPC2
There is no check for this, because it is the players that always determine what the PCs believe and what they do not.

So the answer to your question is that NPC2 needs to have a convincing case that NPC1 is not trustworthy. There's no check for this because you are actually trying to convince the players, not the PCs. A successful Sense Motive check can tip the players off that NPC2 is not on the level, but they can still choose to believe or not believe his argument regardless.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Another way of looking at it...

NPC 1: This vial is full of poison.
NPC 2: No, that vial contains a healing potion.

Both are telling the truth as they understand it. The DM rolls a Sense Motive for the PCs for each NPC. If they succeed on both, you tell them they both seem to be telling the truth. It is up to the player to decide if they trust one over the other, or if there is evidence to suggest one is lying, or if they are both in fact wrong and the vial actually has a potion that gives you purple hair.

[noob]

Also if I wanted to destroy the universe I would have a bright house filled with puppies so that nobody would guess that I am evil.
So the presence of a bright house of good light +5 is an hint that he wants to destroy all the multiverse.
The more good you look the more evil you are because good does not exists.

[Ruslan]

"Getting a Hunch" is listed as DC 20 Sense Motive check. To keep things simple, I'd let the player make this check. If he makes the DC, "he seems sincere to you". If not, "inconclusive". If you want to be an evil DM, you can, while the player rolls his check, quickly roll a die behind the screen yourself - this way, the player can think he's contesting an opposed Bluff check :smallwink:

[Telonius]

Have the players really never been in a situation where two people who seem equally trustworthy are telling them opposite things? (I mean IRL, as well as in-game).

[Fuzzy McCoy]

Another way is to have your NPC say "Look, I can prove it!" - assuming they can, obviously. Whether that's through a spellcraft check (in the case of the puppies spell), allowing the PCs to cast zone of truth/detect evil/detect magic/etc, allowing a search of the premises, an alibi, or other means, it's can be pretty easy to prove your innocence if you're innocent.

[daremetoidareyo]

Belief is weird, you know?
You don't choose it, but you do court it. You can't change it through will, but it can change and force you to compensate. There is a reason that the word "convince" exists, it is where you force a belief into submission. Ever try to convince someone to put their faith in zeus in real life? No one ever ever bites. Even if they want to, they just can't force themselves to believe in Zeus's existence.


So if your PC believes something that is demonstrably false, the only way to fix that is demonstrate that it is false. Trust and paranoia are just like that.

Let the PC be led astray by their belief. It'll sort itself out.

or

Make the PC secretly right by changing all of the stuff behind the scenes to make them right. Agree and amplify the conspiracy all the way to the top. If you aren't in love with your campaign specifics anyway, this is often a fun route to go.

Maybe that puppy spell is a ploy by Anubis against Bast the Cat goddess, who has caught divine toxoplasmosis, and although it doesn't affect her, her non-feline clerics are getting real weird. It started with hoarding cats in the temple, but it has progressed to infecting people with weretiger lycanthropy and forcing them to hunt for the overpopulated temple cats. Anubis thinks that maybe playing into the old dogs vs. cats trope would help break the situation down and has thus embarked on making this NPC get with his program. The problem is that the PC is correct, by showing preferential service to the world's puppies, the Clerics of Bast are going to be set on blast against any doglover in the world. After extensive eradication campaigns,

The wererats and werewolves alike will begin colluding for their own survival. Then the lupines and gnolls join them. The rakshasa's throw their weight behind followers of Bast. Everything could find balance this way, except tiamat was infected with the divine toxoplasmosis too, and being non-feline, falls under the spell of Bast. Tiamat directs the metallic dragons to the forces of evil. Ever the benevolent dogooder, Bahamut tries to give tiamat a divine anti biotic, but she trips him right into her litter box...thus infecting him too. Metallic dragons and chromatic working together again as allies: just as Bahamut always wanted. The dragonborn start destroying anything remotely canine related from the backs of blue and red dragons! What is worse is that divine magic itself is the contagion for the plasmosis, so it is just a matter of time before all clerics & druids catch the mind-altering condition and seek to protect at the cost of their lives any feline like creatures that they adopt.

The PCs need a way to battle the cat ladies, and luckily the greensingers have access to the ancient catnip of legend, but, being divine casters, have devolved into greenbound lion wildshapes, and although some are still holding out, the ancient catnip tree, Meowgdrasil cannot take anymore of the harsh treatment at the hands of what were once it's protectors, who are now taking cuttings to distribute as street drugs in a ploy to become the most powerful cat-based weirdos. Access to this drug allows for it to be used to immediately pacify the aggravated cat-peoples.

Tibbets and catfolk find that they can lead armies of people and begin taking territories that offer a lot of vision over the rest of the land. Sparrow hengeyokai go extinct in the course of single year.

If only the flames of war were not stoked by this epic level puppy happiness spell by that NPC!

The only way that the PCs can stop the scourge from leaving this planet and affecting the multiverse is to apply the only antibiotic that they have left: releasing pandorym. The sudden loss of followers might MIGHT be enough of a trigger that the rest of the gods can inoculate the dragon deities and put Bast down.

[Platymus Pus]

Another way of looking at it...

NPC 1: This vial is full of poison.
NPC 2: No, that vial contains a healing potion.

Both are telling the truth as they understand it. The DM rolls a Sense Motive for the PCs for each NPC. If they succeed on both, you tell them they both seem to be telling the truth. It is up to the player to decide if they trust one over the other, or if there is evidence to suggest one is lying, or if they are both in fact wrong and the vial actually has a potion that gives you purple hair.

*gives potion to NPC2*
"Drink it."

[Ruslan]

Make the PC secretly right by changing all of the stuff behind the scenes to make them right. Agree and amplify the conspiracy all the way to the top. If you aren't in love with your campaign specifics anyway, this is often a fun route to go.
This is actually the default modus operandi in Dungeon World. The campaign world is a Schroedinger World, and it depends on the PCs checks. The DM is not planning in advance for the guide to be a traitor and a spy of the BBEG. But if the PCs blow that Sense Motive check*, the guide will turn out to be a spy ...



* it's not called Sense Motive in Dungeon World, I'm just using a familiar term.

[The Grue]

Rather than "He seems to be telling the truth", may I suggest that Sense Motive returns a result to the effect of "He seems to believe what he's saying", which is both more specific and more vague.

Consider a madman who declares to the party that the sky is orange. It's obviously not; they can look up and see for themselves. If they were to roll Sense Motive, they wouldn't get a result of "The madman is lying" or "The madman is telling the truth", because he's neither. The result they'd get is "The madman believes what he's saying."

This approach also serves to reign in some of the insanity that less-experienced GMs inadvertently allow under use of Glibness. You might get a 100 on your Bluff roll to convince the guardsman that you're actually the Emperor of Mankind descended at last from atop the Golden Throne, but that doesn't mean the guardsman throws down his weapon and submits to your authority. It means only that he believes you believe it.

[Misery Esquire]

Tell them to roll Sense Motive again. When they roll anything (hopefully ~10), inform them that they passed and detected his double bluff ; he was trying to seem like he was lying so they wouldn't believe him.

This will solve the immediate problem and instill whole new paradigms of insanity to any social interaction.

Whether this is a benefit or not is up to you.

[Thanatosia]

Step 1 - never roll sense motive unless the players ask to
Step 2 - never give the players a DC for their sense motive checks (that's a secret)
Step 3 - always roll when they make a sense motive check, rather the NPC is being honest or not.

If they are truthful, the DC will be 10 - 1/3rd the NPCs bluff skill. If they are lying, it's 10+ the NPC's Bluff skill. Add various circumstance modifiers if the claim is unbelievable, the PCs have a history of being lied to by that NPC, if the PCs believe the NPC has a motivation to lie or tell the truth (Gives a bonus if their belief aligns with what's happening, a penalty otherwise).



Sucess
NPC is Truthful
NPC is Lying


Fail by 10+
Suspect Lies
Suspect Truth


Fail by <10
Indeterminate
Indeterminate


Suceed by <10
Suspect Truth
Suspect Lie


Suceed by 10+
Convinced of Truth
Convinced of Lie

[P.F.]

What I do in this situation is ask the player for his or her Sense Motive modifier, then roll it in secret. If the NPC is lying, it's opposed by his Bluff check; otherwise, by hunch DC 20. There are only three possible outcomes:


1. "You think he's lying/hiding something."
2. "You aren't sure either way"
3. "He seems to be telling the truth."

Because the player doesn't see the number result, they don't know the relative likelihood of success. If the PC fails, they get a "not sure" result. If they fail badly (I go with 15 points or more) then they get an opposite result. This means that a character would have to have a Sense Motive modifier of +4 or less to get a "lying" result form a truth teller, but is much more likely to believe a liar with a strong Bluff skill. However, the player has no way of knowing whether their "not sure" or "truth" result is because the NPC is in fact telling the truth, or is a good liar.

Generally, player-characters tend to be pretty self-aware; they know if they can usually tell when they are being lied to or not. So the party sorceress might not even bother making a check, while the cleric and rogue may disagree on whether to believe him or not. If they have specific reason to distrust a particular NPC, then "He doesn't seem to be lying, but I still don't trust him" is a perfectly valid response. In the end, the players have to act on the knowledge they have, and decide whether an NPC's shady reputation outweighs his apparent truthfulness in person.

Of course if this goes on for too long, or gets taken too far, I'm not above debriefing my players at the end of the session, "Yes, NPC1 was telling the truth, but NPC2 was bluffing." And every once in a while, a character with a good bluff check will, as mentioned in an earlier post, intentionally present the truth in such a way as to make it seem like a red herring or a joke.

The interactions between Bluff, Sense Motive, and observable facts can lead to some intense role-playing scenarios. In one game, we consistently had interactions that went along these lines:


GUARD: Of course, I have all the appropriate documentation right here,
signed and sealed by the Viceroy himself.
PC1: Sense Motive!
DM: She's lying.
PC2: Sense Motive!
DM: ...You also think she's lying.
PC1: I inspect the documents
DM: Make a Linguistics check
... They're fake. Badly made, obvious forgeries.
PC2: Can I tell from his reaction that he noticed they were forged?
DM: <to PC1> I'm assuming you don't want the guard to know that you know? Make a Bluff check.
And, <to PC2> make a Sense Motive Check
PC1: Could the guard tell that I noticed her papers are forged?
DM: Make a Sense Motive check. <to PC2> And, since you know that he knows,
you also need to make a bluff check.
PC2: Right, so, we know, but we don't think that they know that we know. Maybe we should go?
PC1: Yeah. I say, "Okay, everything seems to be in order here..."
DM: Make a Bluff check.

Now some tables might not enjoy that level of attention to detail, with Bluff literally used try to maintain a poker face and Sense Motive to determine whether the bluff was likely to have been successful, but I had a lot of fun with the complexity and tension produced by using the rules in this way.

[Rakoa]

I handle interactions between PCs and NPCs using Bluff and Sense Motive in a way that I came up with but I'd hardly claim to be original. I wouldn't be surprised if someone before me has already posted something similar in this thread. Regardless, here is what I do. To reduce unnecessary metagame temptation ("Everybody, roll Sense Motive on what this guy just said!") I grant my players the option to roll Sense Motive whenever they desire on a specific statement by an NPC. In response to their declaration of using it, I roll a d20 for Bluff (whether or not the NPC is actually lying or not). A DC 20 verifies the truth (as per the DC chart for the skill), whereas in the case of an actual lie, Bluff sets the DC to verify a lie. Anything less than a 20 (unless the Bluff roll itself is less than 20) results in an unclear result, to prevent metagaming from knowing that, say, a roll of 17 verified the "truth" when in fact a 20 would normally be required to do so.

Clear as mud, right? I find it works quite well, anyway.

But to answer the question given by the topic: it is just that simple. A Sense Motive check at DC 20 can verify a true statement as true. Perhaps this is an extrapolation from the rules on my part, but the "hunch" use of Sense Motive does allow for the detection of trustworthiness.