Okay, I call bullpies again. In the context presented, this phrase IS misleading, and also I'm getting bored YOU always rephrasing essentally the same claim in a way our previous statements doesn't counter it so WE have to rephrase the yet again essentally same claim. What you are stating is false. There is literally no situation when you can't use Sense Motive to sense a motive. I could roll one after every sentence said to sense any kind of ulterior and by RAW you can't do anything about it. And you know what? I'm sensing that you're just f?cking with us at this point. I can't decide if you're lying, misleading, sidestepping or the Gods know what, since I'm very, very sleep deprived and frustrated right now, but assuming you read and consider what we're saying, there is no way you're actually serious anymore. I'm calling either your ignorance or your bluff. Yes, because all of those are. Now shush, before I find a prestige class that can smite you for it! I need tea...
Sense Motive vs Bluff
- Thread starter anest1s
- Start date
Sekhmet
First Post
[MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION]
Bartender is not trying to give a false impression of the Assassin's whereabouts. Bartender is not trying to convince Paladin that he doesn't know where Assassin is.
Under your assumption of Sense Motive, it detects everything but the whole, unabashed, unrestricted truth.
For example, lets say that Bartender knows that Assassin is sitting in the bar, at table #7 , wearing a green scarf and sitting on a rickety chair.
If Bartender says "Assassin is behind you at table #7 , wearing a green scarf and sitting on a chair.", your assumption of Sense Motive means that he would be "setting off fireworks on the trustworthy scale". He didn't tell the whole truth, and the Paladin would be able to tell that he wasn't being honest or trustworthy. After all, he omitted a detail.
In reality, there are a wide variety of honest, trustworthy answers that Bartender could give. For example, if Bartender actually was Assassin, he could say "I haven't seen him today", or "I hear he's staying in the city". Neither of which are untrustworthy, they're both completely honest, they wouldn't register at all.
It isn't until he is deliberately deceiving Paladin that Sense Motive comes into play. He could say "I think he went to the next town over," or "I hear it's a woman", or "He came in earlier and left, hasn't been back since."
The latter examples suggest that he is not Assassin, which is a deception. The former has no deception whatsoever, it just isn't the whole, unabashed, absolute most detail he could possibly provide.
Bartender is not trying to give a false impression of the Assassin's whereabouts. Bartender is not trying to convince Paladin that he doesn't know where Assassin is.
Under your assumption of Sense Motive, it detects everything but the whole, unabashed, unrestricted truth.
For example, lets say that Bartender knows that Assassin is sitting in the bar, at table #7 , wearing a green scarf and sitting on a rickety chair.
If Bartender says "Assassin is behind you at table #7 , wearing a green scarf and sitting on a chair.", your assumption of Sense Motive means that he would be "setting off fireworks on the trustworthy scale". He didn't tell the whole truth, and the Paladin would be able to tell that he wasn't being honest or trustworthy. After all, he omitted a detail.
In reality, there are a wide variety of honest, trustworthy answers that Bartender could give. For example, if Bartender actually was Assassin, he could say "I haven't seen him today", or "I hear he's staying in the city". Neither of which are untrustworthy, they're both completely honest, they wouldn't register at all.
It isn't until he is deliberately deceiving Paladin that Sense Motive comes into play. He could say "I think he went to the next town over," or "I hear it's a woman", or "He came in earlier and left, hasn't been back since."
The latter examples suggest that he is not Assassin, which is a deception. The former has no deception whatsoever, it just isn't the whole, unabashed, absolute most detail he could possibly provide.
Sekhmet
First Post
[MENTION=6698275]Dozen[/MENTION] I have already presented the definitions of "mislead" and "misdirection", and both Greenfield and I have gone through the major syntax of both skills (Bluff and Sense Motive).
Again, without a Bluff, Sense Motive is a minute action. You couldn't perform it after every sentence said unless you plan to sit and stare them down for a minute. At which point, you'd be happy to find that they're ill at ease, probably because you're staring at them like a loon.
Defining deception, misleading, misdirection, and prevarication (as has been done in this thread already) is the only way to win an argument that requires definitions to be precise. It's already been done (as noted three times now, in just this post, so perhaps you'll go and find them) in this thread, and it is absolutely amazing how Greenfield and yourself take liberties with language that just don't exist.
As an example, if the definition for blue read "the color blue", your claim is that blue really means "purple, teal, turquoise, aquamarine, and cyan as well". Yes, they're related, but no, they are not the same.
So, no, deception, misdirection, misleading, or prevarication has not occurred when stating a fact that is related, but not the whole and direct truth. You are being honest and trustworthy, but not forthcoming.
If you are not able to look at definitions of words and apply them to a situation where they are being used, that is wholly another topic altogether. I've spent the majority of my life avidly studying the language, and find it disgusting and insulting when an intelligent person decides to choose their own definition for a known word.
Again, without a Bluff, Sense Motive is a minute action. You couldn't perform it after every sentence said unless you plan to sit and stare them down for a minute. At which point, you'd be happy to find that they're ill at ease, probably because you're staring at them like a loon.
Defining deception, misleading, misdirection, and prevarication (as has been done in this thread already) is the only way to win an argument that requires definitions to be precise. It's already been done (as noted three times now, in just this post, so perhaps you'll go and find them) in this thread, and it is absolutely amazing how Greenfield and yourself take liberties with language that just don't exist.
As an example, if the definition for blue read "the color blue", your claim is that blue really means "purple, teal, turquoise, aquamarine, and cyan as well". Yes, they're related, but no, they are not the same.
So, no, deception, misdirection, misleading, or prevarication has not occurred when stating a fact that is related, but not the whole and direct truth. You are being honest and trustworthy, but not forthcoming.
If you are not able to look at definitions of words and apply them to a situation where they are being used, that is wholly another topic altogether. I've spent the majority of my life avidly studying the language, and find it disgusting and insulting when an intelligent person decides to choose their own definition for a known word.
Okay, first, I have to say that would be hilarious
Flipped my day 180 degrees. Second, it doesn't say you'd have to stay and stare at them. Common sense dictates that action would involve you thinking about what he said and done. If multiple checks are involved, I'd be doing that for a long time, but I don't have to keep looking at him to read the expressions he's not showing anymore.
Said definition of mislead was 'to cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression.' I approve of that. Your claim the phrase "I haven't seen him today" is not misdirection or misleading in this context. That's also true. You also aren't fooled by it, neither are we, and that's fine. It does not involve a Bluff check, either, but I can roll Hunch against it if I was stupid enough not to notice he's derailing the subject right on.
Simply put, I haven't done that. We provided definitions just as you did. If we misenterpreted any of it, you should explain it to us, not telling us repeatedly how wrong we are or presenting your point through means we, as these five pages worth of talking past each other should prove, obviously don't understand. You said you studied the subject, and given the zeal you're protecting your side with tells me you really did. And I'd be ashamed of myself if I angered you this way for no good reason. Forget every insult and assumption for now. Let's say you are our teacher. Let's also say we're those hypothetical kind of students who don't fight their teacher for the sake of it. Teach us, so we pass our tests. Give us a class-worthy explanation.
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
What I get out of this with a quick read is the original question was how should a DM word the result of the die roll so that it's accurate to the rules and tells the player exactly what the rules intend.
The answer is: against an opponent actually lying or being misleading, the rules screw it up because they don't have fully varied results like bluffing to deliver a secret message has.
So add them! Change the rules as you need to. You don't have to stick to the crappy RAW where thinking the person is telling the truth is grounds for suspicion. Absolutely add in a part for Sense Motive that allows rolling to see if someone is being fully honest regardless of whether they are bluffing. Definitely add in different levels of success and failure. From the sound of it, you won't get a satisfactory result from the rules in the PHB or SRD. Don't bother with people who say you're not playing the game as intended because the intent is for it to work, and if it doesn't work in your group then you have grounds to change it enough that it does work. Likewise for playing it "as written." You want as written? As written in the DMG, you can change things however the hell you want!
The answer is: against an opponent actually lying or being misleading, the rules screw it up because they don't have fully varied results like bluffing to deliver a secret message has.
So add them! Change the rules as you need to. You don't have to stick to the crappy RAW where thinking the person is telling the truth is grounds for suspicion. Absolutely add in a part for Sense Motive that allows rolling to see if someone is being fully honest regardless of whether they are bluffing. Definitely add in different levels of success and failure. From the sound of it, you won't get a satisfactory result from the rules in the PHB or SRD. Don't bother with people who say you're not playing the game as intended because the intent is for it to work, and if it doesn't work in your group then you have grounds to change it enough that it does work. Likewise for playing it "as written." You want as written? As written in the DMG, you can change things however the hell you want!
Greenfield
Adventurer
Okay, I'll bite. What is the Bartender trying to do?
Not exactly. It senses untrustworthy motive. That is, it senses when the person is attempting to deceive.
Wrong. It isn't Detect Lie, or even Detect anything but whole, unvarnished Truth.
It tells whether the person is trying to deceive you. So if the Paladin asks about an Assassin, and the Bartender points the man out, there's no deception intended so no alarms go off.
Wrong again. Those wouldn't trip a Detect Lie, but since that isn't what Sense Motive is or does, the fact that the statements are technically correct doesn't matter. What matters is that the Bartender is trying to "create a false impression". And no, those aren't "trustworthy" answers at all.
Now you keep talking about it taking a minute. Let's look at that...
The word "generally" pops up in there, and the fact that it can take "a whole evening" tells us that the time frame is anything but fixed. So while it "generally" takes a minute or longer, it could also take less time. DM's call, I'm sure.SRD said:
By the way, another definition of Misdirect would be: "To distract, obfuscate, or divert attention." Think of what a magician does (I used to be one).
RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
There are less polite forums? Can you take me to them please, I'm curious. For the purpose of cultural anthropology, of course.
Greenfield
Adventurer
I just read over my last reply, and I'm coming on as gentlly as a sledgehammer.
Let me try again.
Detect Lie verifies the accuracy of a given statement.
Sense Motive verifies the trustworthiness of the person who made that statement.
See the difference?
So if I say, "He went down that ally!" to a constable chasing someone, I could be making a true statement (yes, I've seen him use that alley many times), yet still be trying to mislead the constable into thinking that the person he was chasing just went down that alley.
A technically accurate statement, intended to deceive.
Detect Lie won't spot the statement as inaccurate, because it isn't, but Sense Motive will tell you that I'm trying to mislead you.
Because of this difference, arguments that revolve around, "What the Bartender said was factually accurate" really have no place in a discussion of Sense Motive. All you're doing is detailing *how* the Bartender was trying to mislead the Paladin. The fact that he is* trying to mislead the Paladin remains unchanged, and that's what Sense Motive reveals.
Let me try again.
Detect Lie verifies the accuracy of a given statement.
Sense Motive verifies the trustworthiness of the person who made that statement.
See the difference?
So if I say, "He went down that ally!" to a constable chasing someone, I could be making a true statement (yes, I've seen him use that alley many times), yet still be trying to mislead the constable into thinking that the person he was chasing just went down that alley.
A technically accurate statement, intended to deceive.
Detect Lie won't spot the statement as inaccurate, because it isn't, but Sense Motive will tell you that I'm trying to mislead you.
Because of this difference, arguments that revolve around, "What the Bartender said was factually accurate" really have no place in a discussion of Sense Motive. All you're doing is detailing *how* the Bartender was trying to mislead the Paladin. The fact that he is* trying to mislead the Paladin remains unchanged, and that's what Sense Motive reveals.
Similar Threads
