How to play a pathological liar bard, that isn't (too) annoying to his allies?

[Hiro Quester]

I'm building a fear-causing trickster Gnome Bard/Dread Witch for possible use in our up-coming campaign.

Starting with PHB and racial variants from RoS, RotW, and RoD. Other spells, classes, feats granted only on an ad hoc basis. Low-ish magic game (Limits on the number/levels of buff spells a character can have, etc.) DM has okayed Dread Witch, and Gnome bard ACFs, but nothing else outside PH so far.)

Given that I have decided to play a bard that can inspire courage to his allies, but mostly specializes in debuffing enemies. Loading up on fear, enchantments and illusions. Investment in intimidate (Dread Witch gets huge bonuses there +2/level of a 5 level class, that make up for it being cross class for Bards).

I plan on making him a bit of a nihilist. Believes that the gods don't care about mere humanoid affairs. We are alone down here, left to our own pathetic lives. Anyone who tries to tell you what you ought to do, or what it would be "good" for you to do, is just trying to manipulate you, and using the threat of a nasty afterlife, or the gods' punishment to try to coerce you into complying."

[We are not allowed to play CE or NE --DM's bad experiences with players' disloyalty to the party-- so I'd play him as true neutral (towards the chaotic good end of true neutral). He doesn't really care about much at all, except fun, and loyalty to his companions, who he has chosen to like and help. For kicks. And (since the DM leans towards "save the world from impending disaster" plot lines) he maybe cares about fighting against oppression, evil, and other ways folks ruin others' fun.]

He's good at transmitting his nihilist feeling to the enemies. Using Message cantrip (no save, no SR, 10 min/level, medium range) to whisper (intimidate check to demoralize?) in enemies ears: "This isn't worth getting killed for. It's not fun, and you are about to get humiliated then killed. This doesn't matter. Nothing that isn't fun like this could really matter. Just run away and do something more fun. Maybe you should just surrender and beg for mercy." etc. Later on using (mass) Suggestion, to similar effect. Reinforced by illusions, fear auras and spells, etc.

It seems that investing in intimidate and bluff is going to be somewhat important for this character.

So it just struck me: If this character really believes in all this, then he would have a deep disrespect for the truth. Why tell the truth when lying would be more fun/funny/advantageous?

Especially if you can get away with it. And bards (with glibness!!) are better than most at getting away with bluffing others.

Being a practiced pathological liar could be fun. E.g. I'd (quietly) tell a different backstory to each member of our party, that might help them to feel like I understand them and care about their situation.

I might just call him "Heath". "Let me tell you how I got these scars...."

Is this a bad idea?

How can I play this, in such a way that it won't be super-annoying to other party members, or detrimental to our party's ability to get stuff done?

I'm thinking perhaps a signal (which I never misuse) I can make to party members whenever I'm super-serious and need to convey that what I'm saying is something I totally believe is true. Like taking my hat off and holding it to my heart, or whatever.

[BWR]

Keep your lying in fluff scenes. Don't speak up when important stuff is being discussed with NPCs, or be so absurdly, obviously untruthful that everyone will ignore you. If you mess up meaningful interaction with NPCs you'll most likely annoy your fellow PCs and players. If you wish to play a pathological liar, you shouldn't have moments of truthfulness. The point of pathology is that it gets in the way of utility, so just being honest when it's convenient defeats the point.
Lastly, though it should be firstly, talk with your GM and see if this can work. If there are any objections, rewrite your character to fit the game and the group.

[Zaq]

I mean, the easy answer is just to not lie to your friends except when it's really obvious (boasting about exploits and so on, but not lying about actual situation intel or other things that matter). This is your character, and you get to choose how strongly he feels the "pathological" side.

So to use kind of an exaggerated example, if you're choosing what sort of adventure to strike out on next and one option is a temple that requires scaling the Spiky Cliffs of Difficulty, it might be appropriate to lie and talk about how easily you've scaled harder cliffs in the past, but it's not appropriate to lie and falsely say that you have a Mass Fly spell that will get everyone past the challenge when you have no such thing. The former is likely to be amusing, while the latter is likely to be rather less so, especially if there's some kind of opportunity cost associated with getting to the SCoD before finding out that you don't have the resources you claim to.

As far as getting away with misleading backstories or whatever goes, there is, on occasion, fun to be had with actually misleading your partymates, but some groups are chiller about that than others, and you know your group. Most of the time you can get away with it if it's not actually detrimental to the group's efforts. To metagame for a minute, since we're already sitting around making up fantasy stories about fictional characters who don't exist and who don't have real pasts because they aren't real people, how much does it really matter to tell a different story to one person than to another, even if one is "canonical" and one isn't?

The "annoying" part that you're trying to avoid would come if you played this guy as being unable to tell the truth even when lying would impede something that you or the group would be trying to accomplish. So either feeding material misinformation to an ally or partymember (using "material" to mean "this information is important and relevant enough to change what someone will or will not do based on the information alone") to their detriment, or getting caught lying to someone who will get you in serious trouble for doing so when the truth wouldn't have gotten you in trouble, or otherwise engaging in deception that harms you (and the group) more than it helps.

This isn't a statement meant to be taken as 100% absolute, but to a pretty strong degree, you have control over how annoying a character will be. Yes, when we really get into it, a good character roleplayed with firm intensity can end up developing surprising character aspects that we didn't necessarily plan from the start, and that's a good thing—but overall, if a character aspect would be really annoying, don't make that aspect part of the character. Which I think you pretty much understand in the first place, given that we're having this conversation at all, but that doesn't make it less true. In this specific case, if your group would find a blustering braggart annoying from the get-go, then don't bring that to the table. If they'd be cool with you lying about yourself but not cool with you lying to their detriment, then don't do the part they wouldn't be cool with. If you're in a zany, madcap, anything-goes kind of game where lying basically all the time to absolutely everyone would be treated as more amusing than frustrating, then go with that.

Basically, as blunt and as tautological as this sounds, the best way to make a character not be annoying is to not make them be annoying.

[Falontani]

your character's nihilistic attitude reminds me of the Blood of Vol from Eberron

That said, you could be a liar that attempts to make his lies truth. An example of this would be the aforementioned Spiky Cliffs of Difficulty. You could lie and claim to have done something similar easily, or you could claim that you have a mass fly spell that will get you up them, if they take you on your word then strive to get a scroll to mimic what your lie was. So it was a lie when you stated it, but truth when it was needed. This would be harder, but you could still lie to everyone without them getting upset at you.

[Hiro Quester]

This is your character, and you get to choose how strongly he feels the "pathological" side.
[snip]

The "annoying" part that you're trying to avoid would come if you played this guy as being unable to tell the truth even when lying would impede something that you or the group would be trying to accomplish.
[snip]

Basically, as blunt and as tautological as this sounds, the best way to make a character not be annoying is to not make them be annoying.

This is about what I was thinking. Sometimes bragging or lying in the fun parts. Not about the mission critical parts.

And yes, clearing all this with the DM, of course.

[BowStreetRunner]

I dunno...I could definitely seeing this working out as long as the rest of the players are pretty quick on their feet.

*Bard comes running into the room in a seeming panic.*

Party member: "What's wrong, bard? Why are you running?"

Bard: "Me? Running? No, I was just out for a casual stroll. I definitely did NOT just see the enemy cleric with a half dozen guards coming this way."

Party member: "What!?! Their on their way here now?!?"

Bard: "Certainly not." Draws sword and turns to face the door. "Which is why I am not planning on taking up any sort of defensive position. Could someone please cast some buff spells on me now? No reason in particular, of course!"

As long as the rest of the party understands the dynamic, they can deal with this sort of thing. It could actually be somewhat entertaining.

[Doctor Awkward]

He's good at transmitting his nihilist feeling to the enemies. Using Message cantrip (no save, no SR, 10 min/level, medium range) to whisper (intimidate check to demoralize?)

Per the skill Intimidate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm), you may only demoralize enemies that you threaten in melee combat.


So it just struck me: If this character really believes in all this, then he would have a deep disrespect for the truth. Why tell the truth when lying would be more fun/funny/advantageous?

You may need to adjust your philosophy a bit.

Thus far what you have described is an existential nihilist: that life and existence is without objective meaning, and so nothing you do really matters, so why bother doing anything at all? So far as such a person is concerned, they are in possession of the only real truth. And as such being a compulsive liar about anything would serve no real purpose. Because really, nothing has a purpose. You just want it to to make yourself feel better.


On the other hand, as a moral nihilist, you believe that the very concepts of "right" and "wrong" are social constructs; a complex set of recommendations intended to give its adherents some form of social, psychological, or social advantage. Specifically, he could probably function the way you want him to as an error theorist.
Error theory is build on three principles:

There are no moral features in this world, because nothing is right or wrong.
Therefore, no moral judgements are true.
Sincere moral judgements try, and fail, to describe moral things.

So far as he is concerned, normal people are trying to state the truth when they make moral judgments. But since there is no moral truth, all of their moral claims are mistaken. Since knowledge requires truth, and there is no moral truth, there can be no moral knowledge. Thus moral values are purely the product of an unchecked imagination.

Such a character would have zero compunctions about telling lies, usually as a lesson about how in doing so he denies the inherent advantage given to others who play strictly by society's rules.

But such a person also probably wouldn't have very many friends.

In this case the best solution would probably be to always be honest with the party, as they are your friends and in need of guidance. And then proceed to treat everyone not in the party to your particular form of reality, and demonstrate for them the correctness of it.

Check out Machiavelli's The Prince or Plato's Republic and the character of Thrasymachus for some (mostly) close examples.

[Hiro Quester]

Thanks, Tonymitsu. I was more thinking about using the basic intimidate check. Not to demoralize (into fear), but to make friendly (they no longer want to attack us).

On nihilism, I'm aiming for an (oversimplified) version of both existential and moral nihilism. More channeling someone like Albert Camus, and/or a questionable interpretation of Nietzsche, than Machiavelli. Or perhaps a less evil version of the Dark Knight's "Joker" character.

So yes, a manipulative rhetorician, like Thrasymachus is sometimes depicted to be. Max ranks in perform (oratory) and bluff.

Much of the time his stories will be oriented to getting people to do what (he thinks) needs to be done. Self-descriptions that we should try to live up to ("sure, we can take care of that for you"). Or deceptions to elicit courage when the truth would be daunting ("You totally can handle this; there's not that many of them." "You can do it, I'm sure you can if you try hard.", or to elicit surrender "(You are totally outnumbered. We are more numerous and more powerful than we look. You should give up and go home, so you don't die, humiliated.") etc.

He believes that most moral pronouncements are attempts to manipulate others and restrict their freedom. There is no "right" way to act, or "right" thing or cause to care about. There is no objective reason to care about anything. You can follow your passions in caring about whatever turns you on. He has chosen to care about some things (like opposing oppression, and loyalty to his friends, and the adoration of crowds when he performs).

He has a pragmatic concern for telling stories that serve his (and the party's interests, not necessarily adhering to the truth). He's all about inspiring and demoralizing (the truth is always secondary to those aims and tactics).

And this will be combined with lots of self-serving rationalization and self-deception. He doesn't always tell the truth to himself, either.

[Sam K]

I think a big question for this kind of concept (the fluff, not the crunch) is "what do the party get out of it"? If you're going to spend your time around a habitual liar that person better make it worth your while. We tolerate brilliant asshats not because they are asshats but because they are brilliant, after all.

With a habitual liar, an easy(ish) way to do it is to make a character who lies for the benefits of others instead of for yourself. You get the mage lord Mocktavius to offer to mentor the party wizard, giving the wizard access to his mentors spell books for copying spells. Of course, you did it by making Mocktavius believe that the party wizard is a prodigy student in theoretical translocation spells that graduated with honors, when in truth he didn't as much "graduate" as "run off with a spellbook while they were putting out the fire in the high energy magic building that I totally had nothing to do with".

You get the barbarian off the charges of beating a arrogant noble into a coma with his own liver in a bar brawl, but you do so by making the merchants guild believe that the barbarian is a prince from a savage but wealthy kingdom there to establish trade relations, and now the party is being treated like royalty while noone understands why, or what this "contract signing" ceremony coming up is all about.

You get the loot sold for full several thousand more than expected, because you spun a tale of how that bastard sword +2 that noone knows how to use was actually the lost sword of St Stabh-bert (the lesser known cousin of St Cuth-bert) and the church gave you a reward for retrieving it. The party left the city ahead of schedule and better equipped than they expected, which was a good thing because now there are paladins looking for them...

Obviously you don't TELL people that you lied to get them advantages, you want them to believe it's because they're just so awesome by themselves, and you're just so darn helpful!

This is just an example of how you could play it and it might not work great with your over all concept - then again, a nihilist that enjoys fun may want to see his friends have fun as well, and not care about if they would disapprove of the way he gets them their wins.

[Hiro Quester]

Thanks, Sam K. That was both funny and useful. This is indeed the kind of thing I'm aiming for: fun, funny and practical.

The main point is to be useful in helping the party. The truth is often less important than a good story at achieving that goal.