How to do an untrustworthy NPC

[Patsy]

Every time I make an NPC who's meant to be a bit sneaky and underhanded, the players either don't notice anything unusual and just treat him/her at face value, or smell a rat immediately and take them down hard.
I'm trying to run a less combat-heavy, more investigation-based game, and I need some ways to make an NPC seem harmless, but provide enough cause for curiosity that a canny player gets the idea to take a closer look at them.

For instance, in my game at the moment, I'm setting up the plot that the high priest is going to try to seize power when the king dies. The players don't need to know this, since the main objective will just be to track down and confront the underlings he has working for him in the field, but it will be a whole lot more straightforward if the players really know who's behind it all. Even if they don't get to the bottom of the mystery right away, I'd like there to at least be a point where they go "That swine! I knew he was up to something!"

In short, then, what are some good ways to make an NPC worth investigating, but not an obvious moustache-twirling villain?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Easiest way is to toss in contradictions. Multiple, just in case the players don't catch them. Stuff like the priest claims he was reading the scriptures at Mass (or whatever your campaign's equivalent is) last sunday, but then have another NPC casually mention that a totally different priest was reading the scriptures that day. Or you could have the priest contradict himself, but as he'll generally make the contradiction right there in front of them it means they'll probably confront him about it right there, which may or may not be what you want to happen.

[yougi]

If you want your players to have a more nuanced view of NPCs, make more nuanced NPCs: the next time they meet a criminal NPC and have to negotiate with or work alongside him, make him very likeable and reliable. They'll start off thinking he's a snitch, and he'll make them rethink their interpretation. After that, they won't automatically make the connection from criminal to being screwed over. It also goes the other way: if the only humans they meet are LG knights, well they'll never doubt a single word they say. That way, they can't make first second judgements on NPCs: they have to let them grow.

Also, give the NPCs their own agenda. They can work with the PCs as long as it helps their reach their own goals, but eventually, that won't be the case, and that's when they start betraying the PCs.

[scurv]

http://thepsychopath.freeforums.org/

Read here if you want to know how to make a noteworthy villian. Caution most of the posters there are 3/4th of the way into a nervous breakdown so it is a bit ranty.

<edit>
http://www.powercommunicating.com/ar...hs%20Think.pdf

[Patsy]

Hm, thanks guys! Food for though here. I like the idea about contradictions, particularly. There should be a lot of opportunities for cross-referencing different witness statements when the characters are hanging about the court.
I'll go work on my big NPC word document to get everyone's viewpoint right.
Of course, we all know the players are going to talk to a quarter of them, max, but still, preperation is its own reward.

[Mordar]

Also, give the NPCs their own agenda. They can work with the PCs as long as it helps their reach their own goals, but eventually, that won't be the case, and that's when they start betraying the PCs.

Springing forward from this...

(As much as I hate pithy answers): "Show, don't tell."

Demonstrate that the High Priest is absolutely 100% responsible for doing something that betters the kingdom. After all, he doesn't want to take over a failing empire, does he? Show him in alignment with the King, doing good.

Of course, you have to show something that plants the seed of doubt, as well. The PCs learn about something naughty done by the church (though not the high priest himself...plausible deniability!), or maybe the thing that bettered the kingdom turns out to better the Priest in the long run or puts some egg on the face of the king.

Contrary witness comments, while they have a place, are too easily forgotten or dismissed unless you really make a point of calling them out...which will have a metagame effect ("The DM gave that character a name, and none of the others have names, so he must be important..." kind of effect) that might be best avoided. Use them like spices, I think - valuable in small quantities, but too many will ruin the dish.

For example, the Priest helps broker a trade arrangement with another kingdom through a common faith. That trade arrangement certainly helps the kingdom, bringing much needed [commodity] into the area at a lower price/supplies the army/cures the plague. However, the PCs later find that the church is entitled to a 30% skim on the sales, so it greatly increases their treasury...even more than it helps the kingdom. As a bonus, it also decreases the potency of a key ally of the king (maybe from a third kingdom, or a supportive noble within the kingdom) by bypassing their trade-route and smaller supply of the same commodity, reducing that ally's influence or strength of the opposition when the Priest tries to take the throne.

Thus, the Priest appears to have helped the kingdom, but even more so helped himself *and* weakened the king.

It has been my experience that players generally expect the "faith leader" to either be Cardinal Richelieu or a faceless stereotype of the faithful religious adviser, and will bite on the first identity put forth...right up until you show them the other side and make them want to look more closely.

- M

[Slipperychicken]

If you want your players to have a more nuanced view of NPCs, make more nuanced NPCs: the next time they meet a criminal NPC and have to negotiate with or work alongside him, make him very likeable and reliable. They'll start off thinking he's a snitch, and he'll make them rethink their interpretation. After that, they won't automatically make the connection from criminal to being screwed over. It also goes the other way: if the only humans they meet are LG knights, well they'll never doubt a single word they say. That way, they can't make first second judgements on NPCs: they have to let them grow.

Also, give the NPCs their own agenda. They can work with the PCs as long as it helps their reach their own goals, but eventually, that won't be the case, and that's when they start betraying the PCs.

This is the stuff. Multidimensional NPCs. Not everyone is a perfect saint or a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic (although those can have a place in a world with more well-developed characters).

Maybe he's talking to armed men when they meet him (and they stop and leave the moment the PCs show up, probably after an extremely-brief introduction), or he indirectly criticizes the Kings' policy, or rolls his eyes when they talk about the King. Maybe he says something like "God is the true sovereign. Shame we can't have him rule directly".

[Crafty Cultist]

A few false leads could work well to keep the players guessing. Maybe a suspicious individual's criminal activities consist of selling bootleg alchohol, or similar minor acts. Knowing a character is involved in something shady makes it a matter of how much rather than yes or no, which can keep players guessing.

[Deophaun]

Going with the multidimensional character vein, I prefer character development. The NPC that's going to seize power and unleash hellspawn upon the land? Yeah, he doesn't start out wanting to do that. He has a reasonable, even an admirable goal that turns dark over the course of the campaign. Put him under a Zone of Truth, pump your Sense Motive checks sky high, Discern Lies, Detect Good/Evil, whatever, when the PCs first meet him, he's forthright in his motivations and plans. Now, with their suspicions quelled, I can start to build him back up as a potential threat in their eyes.

[Patsy]

In this case, some of the players are likely not to distrust the High Priest without good reason- he's a sort of Druid, and they seem to have a general idea that Druids are trustworthy.

I think I'll be playing him as jolly and down-to-earth, the player's main ally amidst a city of bickering nobles. Then give them more and more reason to reconsider- the young princess seems strangely devoted to him, the King's middle son (a grumpy type who will seem like a more likely villain at first) distrusts him, and he is bringing his own forces into the city to secure his power.

I'm looking at a two-session game, so I don't have too much time to build it up, but I think it should keep them on their toes.

[Benjamin Vazque]

If he's an important NPC I wouldn't think of him as being untrustworthy. I'd think of him as someone with goals, goals which might not line up with these of the PCs. Then I'd use his INT and WIS scores to figure out how intelligently he might go about achieving these goals. The more these goals are in line with things the PCs MIGHT appreciate, or can at least see the value in, the more contradictions are built in right from the start.