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

[Yaarel]

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).

The ability of ‘fast talking’ to deceive someone, depends on the type of falsehood that one is imposing.

If someone is trying to convince the target that the targets mother is actually a prostitute working in secret, then both the actual facts that she is not, and the emotional motivation of knowing her and trusting her about what she does do with her time, are in full force. The fast talking will fail.

I know from reallife experience, that ‘fast talking’ about subject matters that I happen to know about, gains from me an eyeroll at best and full-on animosity at worst.

 

[Arvok]

I voted yes, but here are my caveats:

A successful Sense Motive will tell the PC if the NPC is being deceptive, which isn't always the same thing as telling the truth. The NPC could be making a statement that is 100% factually accurate, but withholding crucial elements that would lead the PC to the wrong conclusion. Likewise, an NPC could be deceptive about something (like his involvement in something shady), but still telling the PC the truth. In either case, what is true and what the PC will likely take away from the Insight check are two different things.

 

[Mort]

The ability of ‘fast talking’ to deceive someone, depends on the type of falsehood that one is imposing.

If someone is trying to convince the target that the targets mother is actually a prostitute working in secret, then both the actual facts that she is not, and the emotional motivation of knowing her and trusting her about what she does do with her time, are in full force. The fast talking will fail.

Or if someone susses out that the target wants to believe these kind of things about their mother, the deception may work well. It's also about discovering what the target wants to believe.

I know from reallife experience, that ‘fast talking’ about subject matters that I happen to know about, gains from me an eyeroll at best and full-on animosity at worst.

Unless, there's just enough there to to make you believe. Especially if it's on something you WANT to believe.

Madoff took in a lot of very smart people with a scheme many of them could and should have seen through. Why? Because they wanted to believe.

 

[Yaarel]

Or if someone susses out that the target wants to believe these kind of things about their mother, the deception may work well. It's also about discovering what the target wants to believe.



Unless, there's just enough there to to make you believe. Especially if it's on something you WANT to believe.

Madoff took in a lot of very smart people with a scheme many of them could and should have seen through. Why? Because they wanted to believe.

And if a character has Intelligence + knowledge skill modifiers that are low, then they will be statistically more vulnerable to factual disinformation.

If someone has an emotional intelligence (Insight) that is low, then they will be statistically more vulnerable to be emotionally manipulated.



Your reallife example of Madoff is a case in point. People who were educated about other subject matters yet uneducated about the subject matter of finances, were deceived by someone who was INTELLIGENT and extremely educated about the subject matter of finances.

Note that Madoffs own son committed suicide in the aftermath of the crimes that Madoff did. Charisma has limits.

The battle between Charisma and Intelligence, is like a battle between tigers and sharks. Each is the absolute master of its own territory.

 

[5ekyu]

And if a character has Intelligence + knowledge skill modifiers that are low, then they will be statistically more vulnerable to factual disinformation.

If someone has an emotional intelligence (Insight) that is low, then they will be statistically more vulnerable to be emotionally manipulated.



Your reallife example of Madoff is a case in point. People who were educated about other subject matters yet uneducated about the subject matter of finances, were deceived by someone who was INTELLIGENT and extremely educated about the subject matter of finances.

Note that Madoffs own son committed suicide in the aftermath of the crimes that Madoff did. Charisma has limits.

The battle between Charisma and Intelligence, is like a battle between tigers and sharks. Each is the absolute master of its own territory.

I would suggest that in our discussions of game mechanics and the war between brains and BS, we should not endeavor to bring real life catastrophes like suicide of actual IRL people (and identifying them too) into this.

That is a bit on the insensitive side to folks who may have had that IRL drama.

We ought to be able to get our points out without that.

I saw some gamer-streamer do some mock burial rants digging grave in his backyard over gaming rules and then try and explain it away as a gaming addiction thing and I know it hit me very negatively becsuse of actual IRL addiction related burials I have had to go thru.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I like [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s suggestion that Insight success reveals a bond, flaw, trait, etc.

Failure, since it needs to have a consequence, would return a false...and possibly diametrically opposed...bond, flaw, trait.

The only downside is that you either have to think really fast, or spend time preparing both the correct and incorrect values for any NPC your players might start interrogating.

 

[jgsugden]

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).

You can understand why people doubt this when there is almost no charismatic communications on message boards like these...

 

[Mercule]

Either "yes" or "remove the skill from the list". It's a bit like asking whether Survival would allow you to tell whether berries are safe to eat.

 

[iserith]

I like @iserith's suggestion that Insight success reveals a bond, flaw, trait, etc.

Failure, since it needs to have a consequence, would return a false...and possibly diametrically opposed...bond, flaw, trait.

The only downside is that you either have to think really fast, or spend time preparing both the correct and incorrect values for any NPC your players might start interrogating.

The DMG does suggest giving an incorrect ideal, bond, or flaw on a failure, but I think that is not very elegant adjudication. It leads to situations where the player sees a botched roll and cannot trust the result they are given so it is basically a waste of time. So in this case, I think progress combined with a setback is ideal here. You get the ideal, bond, or flaw, but the NPC notices that they are being read or manipulated so the difficulty escalates for subsequent attempts to uncover personal characteristics (for example).

 

[Guest 6801328]

Either "yes" or "remove the skill from the list". It's a bit like asking whether Survival would allow you to tell whether berries are safe to eat.

Wow. That's an exceptionally narrow definition of Insight.

I mean, use your own comparison: if Survival could not tell you if berries are safe to eat, would you remove it from the list? What about navigation? Tracking? Weather-sense? Building shelters? Spotting hazards? Building traps?