Sense Motive and lying.

[Doomboy911]

I was thinking a mysteries in dungeons and dragons and a thought occurred to me can you detect lies on one person if that person is repeating a lie they were told that they didn't know was a lie?

If detecting lies is based off analyzing the person's body and figuring out they're lying then it shouldn't affect the person retelling the lie because to them it's the truth but if detecting lies and such is based off some kind of scrying then it should work then.

Thoughts?

[Flickerdart]

Literally the first line of the skill is "A successful check lets you avoid being bluffed." If someone is telling you what they think is the truth, are they bluffing?

[Joe the Rat]

It's "Sense Motive" not "Fact Check".

Don't think of it as detecting lies, think of it as detecting the intent to deceive. Arguably lie detection magic (Zone of Truth, Ring of Truth) operate on the same principle - if the person is telling you something they honestly think is true, then they will read as truthful. I like to emphasize this point with phrases like "She seems to believe what she is saying" or "He is very sincere in his reply" for when the NPC succeeds their bluff, or is in fact sincerely trying to give you good information.

Now if you were to use other divinations (such as Divination) to ask if what they said is true, then that would tell you if the information was correct.

[Seppo87]

Pathfinder seems to assume that yes, they are bluffing:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core...vincing-lie-ex

[Strigon]

The skill is called "Sense Motive" for a reason, not "Sense Truth" or "Sense Misunderstanding".
You're analyzing whether or not they have something hidden, whether it's an outright lie or a lie of omission. Players can certainly get the wrong information from a successful Sense Motive check, whether it's because the person actually believes what they say, or the players themselves arrive at an incorrect conclusion.

Of course, this shouldn't be done all that often, as it can get quite frustrating.

[erikun]

"Sense Motive", at least in the methods I've seen it used, has been about reading body language and determining if the character is hiding something or otherwise trying to be deceptive. Thus, if the character says something which they genuinely believe to be true - but is actually false - then the Sense Motive skill would not pick up on any lying. If the character thinks they have a million dollars in their bank account but it was actually all stolen and they haven't noticed, then "I have a million dollars in my bank account" would seem true by using Sense Motive.

On the other hand, since it is about reading body language and seeing through deception, I generally consider Sense Motive to be capable of picking up more than just strickly lies. It can also pick up on evasive language and other aspects of a character's mannerisms, more than just strickly lying. The above "I have a million dollars in my bank account" might not be seen as false, but you could pick up that the character is uncomfortable with discussing their bank account details with four dirty strangers dressed up in swords and riot gear.


As for magic, that is a lot trickier. Most magic is going to behave just how it says in the game system, because most game systems can behave difference. Most of the time a "Detect Lies" spell or D&D's "Zone of Truth" work specifically against lies but nothing else. A character under these spells could say something like "I have never planned to sneak in and murder the baron" when in truth, they have planned to sneak in and kidnap the baron, but the murder was an accident. Such a phrase would detect as true by those spells (since it technically is) and unlike Sense Motive, there is no capability to detect deception as well. Of course, that does depends on the exact workings of the spell itself.

Sometimes the magic will work if the target isn't aware of the falsehood, sometimes it doesn't. I frequently see Detect Lies to only apply to what the target believes - the "million dollars in my bank account" from above would appear to speak truly, despite the statement being incorrect, because they believe they currently have that in their bank account. On the other hand, I've seen Zone of Truth work both ways. In some cases, the character could freely state "I have a million dollars in my bank account" because, as far as they know, it is the truth. In other cases, the character would be unable to speak the phrase, because it is actually false (even if they are unaware of that fact).

[Kish]

Pathfinder seems to assume that yes, they are bluffing:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core...vincing-lie-ex

Yeah, that rule doesn't make any sense.

Just to be clear, you brought it up to make the point "Someone at Pathfinder messed up," right? Not to argue that repeating a lie is ipso facto Bluff even if you believe it?

(Suggest fixing that rule to "uses the rogue's Bluff modifier in place of his Diplomacy modifier, if it's higher, or gets a +2 bonus to convince other people, if it's not.")

[Seppo87]

Just to be clear, you brought it up to make the point "Someone at Pathfinder messed up," right? Not to argue that repeating a lie is ipso facto Bluff even if you believe it?

(Suggest fixing that rule to "uses the rogue's Bluff modifier in place of his Diplomacy modifier, if it's higher, or gets a +2 bonus to convince other people, if it's not.")

Yes I think they messed up.

However, I am not entirely sure this was not intentional on their part.

Even if it was intentional, I think it's a bad idea to go with it! I like your fix.

[Doomboy911]

So one could very easily beat a good chunk of magic by just telling a gullible guy everything and then telling him to relay that information to others.

[Gallowglass]

Yeah, that rule doesn't make any sense.

Just to be clear, you brought it up to make the point "Someone at Pathfinder messed up," right? Not to argue that repeating a lie is ipso facto Bluff even if you believe it?

(Suggest fixing that rule to "uses the rogue's Bluff modifier in place of his Diplomacy modifier, if it's higher, or gets a +2 bonus to convince other people, if it's not.")

In could make sense in some circumstances.

If the rogue lies to person A and says "Oh, yeah, elephants are totally native to Antarctica. I was down there on expedition a few years back and we had to dogsled through a whole batch of them!". Person A has no ranks in knowledge nature or geography and rolls a poor sense motive vs the rogue's bluff, so person A now believes that the rogue is telling the truth, ergo, person A now believes there are elephants in Antarctica.

Later on, person A says to person B. "there are totally elephants in Antarctica." Person B DOES have ranks in knowledge nature and thinks, wait a second... that doesn't sound right. I'm going to make a sense motive roll to see if person A is lying. Rolls a natural 20. By the Pathfinder rules, person B now knows that, nope, that's not true. But by your rules, person B gets told. "person A is not lying. Not one bit."

It gets worse with magical "discern lies" because to the paladin casting the spell because the spell pings true even in the face of such a baldfaced lie.

Like any system in D&D and pathfinder, the system is reducing a great number of factors into a single roll. Not just the person's facade and ability to spin a yarn, but also the listeners different breadth of expertise and outside knowledge they bring to the table. It doesn't have to be as outlandish as my example either.

Rogue to Person A "Yeah Duke Edinrathe is having an affair with Lady Isabella." Bluff vs Sense motive, bluff wins.
Person A to Person B "Did you know that Duke Edinrathe is having an affair with Lady Isabella."
-> pathfinder rule: Rogue bluff vs sense motive. Sense motive wins. "I can tell you believe that, but I happen to know that Duke Edinrathe is married for political reasons and that he's secretly gay so there is no way he is having an affair with Lady Isabella. He's too busy shagging his huntsman." (or whatever information the DM decides factors into your skill check win)
-> your rule: Person A bluff vs Person B sense motive? No,there is no roll. He's not trying to bluff. Regardless of roll, person B is told person A is telling the truth.

So I feel like the pathfinder rule is just there to give person B a chance to uncover a layered deception, whereas without the rule there would be no system way to do so.

Now do I think its a good system? Well no. Like the entire social combat structure in 3.5/P I find it convoluted, obtuse, unnecessary and ill-contrived.

[Strigon]

So one could very easily beat a good chunk of magic by just telling a gullible guy everything and then telling him to relay that information to others.

Yes, but you'd also have to convince the people who set it up in the first place, requiring a realistic explanation. Just because you don't believe he's lying, doesn't mean you have to believe he's telling the truth.

[Necroticplague]

I'd say yes, they're still bluffing. Not intentionally so, but still bluffing. A good Sense Motive would let you point out holes in their story that they, themselves missed when they first heard it.Both Bluff and Sense Motive combine the body language and the content of the message in their related check (a good bluff check is more internally consistent than a bad one, and/or is delivered with more conviction). Good Bluff by the gullible person that let's them deliver it convincingly enough that one overlooks the holes in the content.

[Strigon]

In could make sense in some circumstances.

If the rogue lies to person A and says "Oh, yeah, elephants are totally native to Antarctica. I was down there on expedition a few years back and we had to dogsled through a whole batch of them!". Person A has no ranks in knowledge nature or geography and rolls a poor sense motive vs the rogue's bluff, so person A now believes that the rogue is telling the truth, ergo, person A now believes there are elephants in Antarctica.

Later on, person A says to person B. "there are totally elephants in Antarctica." Person B DOES have ranks in knowledge nature and thinks, wait a second... that doesn't sound right. I'm going to make a sense motive roll to see if person A is lying. Rolls a natural 20. By the Pathfinder rules, person B now knows that, nope, that's not true. But by your rules, person B gets told. "person A is not lying. Not one bit."

And that's absolutely correct.
The person isn't lying; they are providing you with what they believe to be the truth. It's only natural that someone trained in reading people wouldn't detect a lie. But this is where the human intellect comes in; you then decide that, since:
This person believes elephants are native to Antarctica,
and
You know they aren't,
you can make the reasonable guess that this person is misinformed.

As a GM, you should convey the information that they get with the sense motive roll, but let that be only a part of the whole picture. Make sure they understand beforehand exactly what that skill can and cannot do. And then maybe give them a Knowledge: Nature check to then inform them that the guy's an idiot.


Of course, it could work for another reason: The bluffer spins a convincing yarn about how they're very rare Albino Snow Elephants, and their camouflage works so well they're often mistaken for snow banks. He convinces the poor layman, who repeats it to the Sense Motive user. When questioned, he recalls the explanation given to him and repeats it, effectively using the bluffer's bluff. Then you roll your Sense Motive to see whether you can pick any holes in his explanation, and any nature roll of any level can only say "You've never heard of Albino Snow Elephants".

[SethoMarkus]

I'd say yes, they're still bluffing. Not intentionally so, but still bluffing. A good Sense Motive would let you point out holes in their story that they, themselves missed when they first heard it.Both Bluff and Sense Motive combine the body language and the content of the message in their related check (a good bluff check is more internally consistent than a bad one, and/or is delivered with more conviction). Good Bluff by the gullible person that let's them deliver it convincingly enough that one overlooks the holes in the content.

Sense Motive isn't about detecting holes in a story or determining fact from fiction, it is about sensing one's motive. Being misinformed is not the same as lying. Sure, Knowledge checks, Lore checks, bsic Intelligence or Wisdom checks may determine a falsehood, but the individual would still be "telling the truth" in so far as they are not (intentionally) attempting to mislead the listener.

Now, it would be interesting for Sense Motive to determine if the source of the speaker's information were devious or not. As per the earlier example about albino elephants, perhaps a good Sense Motive could determine that the misinformed speaker were lied to by the rogue (if the speaker gives enough detail in their retelling of the exchange). But the speaker/Person A would still be innocent of lying, at least until the point that they try to save face by making excuses for their gullibility or defending the rogue by claiming to have other sources confirming the existence of albino elephants in the Arctic.

[Necroticplague]

Sense Motive isn't about detecting holes in a story or determining fact from fiction, it is about sensing one's motive. Being misinformed is not the same as lying. Sure, Knowledge checks, Lore checks, bsic Intelligence or Wisdom checks may determine a falsehood, but the individual would still be "telling the truth" in so far as they are not (intentionally) attempting to mislead the listener.

Actually, sense motive is, at least, in part, a process that involves analyzing the message itself to try and determine if the dude's lying. That's why their a bonus to Sense Motive if the lie is "way out their, almost too impossible to believe". So for someone who's lying without realizing it, they failed their sense motive and didn't notice the inconsistencies, but someone hearing the same story from them might be able to notice

[SethoMarkus]

Actually, sense motive is, at least, in part, a process that involves analyzing the message itself to try and determine if the dude's lying. That's why their a bonus to Sense Motive if the lie is "way out their, almost too impossible to believe". So for someone who's lying without realizing it, they failed their sense motive and didn't notice the inconsistencies, but someone hearing the same story from them might be able to notice

Yes, they might be skeptical of whether or not the information is factual, but as far as Sense Motive goes they only can determine that the speaker is not attempting to deceive and in fact believes what they are saying.

It's fine to run it in a game however you would like, but the way you are describing it is not intuitive to me. The first thought that pops into my head is to have the fighter say that the big bad has specific weaknesses and use Sense Motive to determine what resistances and immunities it really has.

[Slipperychicken]

So one could very easily beat a good chunk of magic by just telling a gullible guy everything and then telling him to relay that information to others.

We call those 'spokespeople'.

[The Fury]

Truth-telling is perhaps the only issue in tabletop RPGs as sticky as character alignment. In my own opinion, I think Flickerdart called it. If you're questioning someone that has arrived at an incorrect conclusion, if they give that incorrect conclusion, they're factually wrong but still telling the truth. I know some people that disagree though. This is why Zone of Truth can be such an annoying spell.

[Slipperychicken]

Truth-telling is perhaps the only issue in tabletop RPGs as sticky as character alignment. In my own opinion, I think Flickerdart called it. If you're questioning someone that has arrived at an incorrect conclusion, if they give that incorrect conclusion, they're factually wrong but still telling the truth. I know some people that disagree though. This is why Zone of Truth can be such an annoying spell.

It's a kind of uncomfortable distinction between truth and sincerity. People can believe things that are not factually correct, and that can waste a lot of time in-game.


Also, I think one of the good changes to 5th edition was that they stopped calling the skill "sense motive", because that implies the user achieves a much greater depth and certainty than they can realistically expect to.

[goto124]

As the saying goes, if Zone of Truth detects literal truth, scholars could recite statements inside the Zone and tell which bits of their knowledge are true or false

Actually, sense motive is, at least, in part, a process that involves analyzing the message itself to try and determine if the dude's lying. That's why their a bonus to Sense Motive if the lie is "way out their, almost too impossible to believe". So for someone who's lying without realizing it, they failed their sense motive and didn't notice the inconsistencies, but someone hearing the same story from them might be able to notice

Shouldn't the relevant Knowledge skill be used instead? Sense Motive focuses more on how the message is delivered, while Knowledge skills can pick apart the contents of the message itself.

Well, perhaps inconsistencies could be spotted, but without external knowledge, any inconsistencies would have to be self-contained inconsistencies. Such inconsistencies may be caused by the rogue (who told the lie to the unknowing dude) or the dude himself (who repeated the lie imperfectly). Assuming the dude repeated the lie perfectly, you'll be rolling against the rogue's lying skills, not the dude's. Wait, does that sound right?

[veti]

And that's absolutely correct.
The person isn't lying; they are providing you with what they believe to be the truth. It's only natural that someone trained in reading people wouldn't detect a lie. But this is where the human intellect comes in; you then decide that, since:
This person believes elephants are native to Antarctica,
and
You know they aren't,
you can make the reasonable guess that this person is misinformed.

This, exactly.

Imagine if 'Sense Motive' could tell if someone were telling the "real", as opposed to "believed", truth. You could, e.g., solve a murder mystery by getting a guy with a really good Sense Motive skill, and a person with a really low Bluff skill, and getting the latter to say "X was the murderer", using the names of each suspect in turn. Even if neither of the participants knew anything about the circumstances or the people in it. Heck, all you'd need to give them would be a list of names, there's no need for either one of them to go within a thousand miles of the crime scene.

If you accept that this is ridiculous - and I don't see how you can not accept that - then the skill can't work that way.

[Seppo87]

If you accept that this is ridiculous - and I don't see how you can not accept that - then the skill can't work that way.

The skill works that way but, if you exploit it, you're a bad player and must be punished for metagaming!

[Lorsa]

This, exactly.

Imagine if 'Sense Motive' could tell if someone were telling the "real", as opposed to "believed", truth. You could, e.g., solve a murder mystery by getting a guy with a really good Sense Motive skill, and a person with a really low Bluff skill, and getting the latter to say "X was the murderer", using the names of each suspect in turn. Even if neither of the participants knew anything about the circumstances or the people in it. Heck, all you'd need to give them would be a list of names, there's no need for either one of them to go within a thousand miles of the crime scene.

If you accept that this is ridiculous - and I don't see how you can not accept that - then the skill can't work that way.

It doesn't even stop with murder mysteries, you could effectively find all truths in the entire universe. Granted, the existence of gods are pretty well acknowledged in a D&D universe, but there are usually some myths that people are unsure of.

You could even figure out the best plan to do something, where artifacts are hidden, if the king's adviser is up to an evil plot or what-have-you. The possibilities are endless, and quite obviously ridiculous.

[Lorsa]

The skill works that way but, if you exploit it, you're a bad player and must be punished for metagaming!

*Sense Motive roll failed: sarcasm not detected*

But... that's just so unfair! How can it be metagaming if it's in the rules?!?!?!??!?!?111

[Segev]

Notably, the mechanical function of bluff is to get somebody to not just believe you, but act on that belief in a manner roughly of your choosing for at least 1 round. So Convincing Lie can be used to transform the patsy's conveyance of false information (which he believes to be true) into a Bluff check which actually can persuade a listener.

Without the feat, if Rob the Rogue tells Pat C. Gullible that the king has commanded Pat to be ushered into the king's presence, and then Pat goes to tell Gard Man this, Gard Man might believe that Pat is telling what he perceives to be the truth, but wouldn't buy it, himself, even for a minute. With the feat, Pat's second-hand telling would cause Rob's bluff check to be used on Gard, and Gard would then act upon his belief in that falsehood and probably let Gard right on through.

Because a Bluff convinces somebody not just that you believe what you're saying, but to act upon it for a brief period, it is a little more powerful than simply being able to state something with (seeming) honesty. It is truly the ability to fool somebody into buying it, at least briefly.

[Zombimode]

If detecting lies is based off analyzing the person's body and figuring out they're lying then it shouldn't affect the person retelling the lie because to them it's the truth but if detecting lies and such is based off some kind of scrying then it should work then.

This is not the first time I've seen someone expressing something like that and it confuses me.

Does in the english language "to lie" means "not to tell the objective truth"?

Because other languages make a distinction between "to make a statement that is false to the speaker's knowledge" and "to say something that is (objectively) false".

[The Fury]

This is not the first time I've seen someone expressing something like that and it confuses me.

Does in the english language "to lie" means "not to tell the objective truth"?

Because other languages make a distinction between "to make a statement that is false to the speaker's knowledge" and "to say something that is (objectively) false".

I'd say that "to say something that is false to the speaker's knowledge" is a lie. I'd call something "Objectively false" just an incorrect statement.

[Segev]

In English, "to tell the truth" means colloquially to not lie. Technically, you are not telling the truth if you make a factually incorrect statement, even if you believe it to be true. However, the unspoken understanding is that "telling the truth" is to speak such that you create no false impressions of what you honestly believe to be true.

"Not lying" means that you don't make knowingly false statements. It is often pointed out that it is technically distinct from "not deceiving," as if one cannot lie, one can still deceive with half-truths and out-of-context truths.

So yeah, it's a bit of ambiguity in colloquial English. Not a major one, but it can lead to some confusion at times.