Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?

[Yaarel]

Consider reallife. Someone is pretending to be a doctor, and successfully bluffs their way thru hospitals and medical insurance companies.

People of low Intelligence cant do that. They have to be Intelligent.

Essentially, these are smart people of dubious ethics, who are self-taught as they go along.

 

[Mort]

Consider reallife. Someone is pretending to be a doctor, and successfully bluffs their way thru hospitals and medical insurance companies.

People of low Intelligence cant do that. They have to be Intelligent.

Essentially, these are smart people of dubious ethics, who are self-taught as they go along.

Or they could be bold and extraordinarily charismatic. There are multiple ways to accomplish the goal you stated.

5e accommodates this by allowing the DM to adjudicate based on player approach.

 

[Shiroiken]

Insight has many uses, and yes being able to feel out those who would deceive you should be one of them. I prefer complicated answers myself, giving an indication of what the players want to know. "He seems to be nervous about something." "You think he's not telling the whole truth." "He seems to believe what he's saying." "You get an uncomfortable feeling in your gut at the way he smiles at what he's saying." In the proper use, it can give an indication of what the players want, but isn't a simple lie detector.


Oh, and despite voting yes, I reject your reality and substitute my own.

 

[Yaarel]

Or they could be bold and extraordinarily charismatic.

Uneducated people can bluff other uneducated people.

But educated people who happen to know what the facts are cannot be ‘convinced’ by smooth talking.

It is like trying to hide in plain sight. The uneducated deceiver looks like an idiot while everyone watches. Painfully.

The only way to deceive people who know the facts, is by means of an INTELLIGENT ploy.

 

[Mort]

Uneducated people can bluff other uneducated people.

But educated people who happen to know what the facts are cannot be ‘convinced’ by smooth talking.

This is pure hogwash. Educated people are often the easiest to convince especially on subjects they are not expert in (because they assume education in one field equates to knowledge in others).

Even experts can be deceived, if the deceiver is bold enough.

It is like trying to hide in plain sight. The uneducated deceiver looks like an idiot while everyone watches. Painfully.

Again hogwash, charisma counts for a lot.

The only way to deceive people who know the facts, is by means of an INTELLIGENT ploy.

It's one way to deceive people, another is by taking advantage of how intelligent they think they are - through charisma.

 

[Yaarel]

Educated people are often the easiest to convince especially on subjects they are not expert in.

If the targets of a deception ‘are not expert in’ the subject, then by definition they are UNEDUCATED in that subject.

The targets are uneducated. They dont know the facts. Therefore, an other uneducated person can deceive them.

If they are educated about the facts of a subject matter, then the uneducated person cannot make up alternative facts convincingly.

Again. It is like trying to hide in plain sight.

 

[Yaarel]

Heh. The reverse seems to be true.

If a person is educated about what the facts actually are and is speaking the truth, then often enough, the uneducated listeners might assume the educated person is trying to deceive them. Because the uneducated person has no way to tell if a fact is true or not.

 

[Mort]

If the targets of a deception ‘are not expert in’ the subject, then by definition they are UNEDUCATED in that subject.

The targets are uneducated. They dont know the facts. Therefore, an other uneducated person can deceive them.

If they are educated about the facts of a subject matter, then the uneducated person cannot make up alternative facts convincingly.

Again. It is like trying to hide in plain sight.

You keep saying that, almost like a mantra. Yet there are plenty of, even real life, examples that show otherwise.

For example, if what you're saying is true, Theranos could have never happened. Instead it was a multi billion dollar company.

 

[Yaarel]

Charisma counts for a lot.

I am a fan of Charisma. I feel Charisma necessarily includes ALL social skills, including Insight and Willpower.

But facts are facts. If someone knows the facts, one must argue Intelligently to persuade them otherwise. In other words, Intelligence logic.

It's one way to deceive people, another is by taking advantage of how intelligent they think they are - through charisma.

Intelligence is a significant factor. But so is a skill bonus.

If someone is trying to bluff their way thru a sporting event, making up rules or statistics or history as they go along (such as for the purpose of fixing a gambling scheme), then everyone with the Athletics skill would be more likely recognize any false facts.

 

[Mort]

I am a fan of Charisma. I think it needs to include all social skills, including Insight and Willpower.

But facts are facts. If someone knows the facts, one must argue Intelligently to persuade them. In other words, Intelligence logic.

Facts may be facts, but people are people. Many respond much better to persuasion and charisma than to logic. It's amazing what you can convince someone if you first convince them to want it to be true (or skip that step and find someone who wants it to be true).