You think I'm Lying, but I'm not!

[Æthernaut]

I have a character concept and am looking for advice on how to make it work mechanically.

1) The Character never (or rarely) tells a lie, but people just never seem to believe him anyway.
2) He could be partially to blame. His dialog is packed full of mannerisms that could easily be interpreted as the 'tells' of liar. For instance, while talking he:

• looks creatively inspired at inopportune moments
• looks off in the 'wrong' direction
• drops volume mid-sentance
• winks after a statement
• climbs in vocal pitch
• tugs a collar or ear
• drops eye contact
• scuffs toe of shoe
• breathes shallow
• turns body away
• begins to sweat
• crosses fingers
• covers eyes
• gulps air
• stutters
• frowns
• fidgets
• panics
• runs

3) He can't help it, he was born and raised in a pesh den, and so all his ques are off.

4) When he can help it, he figures "If you want to think I'm lying, you go right ahead, but if your actions are evil, well then, that's a different matter."

5) He could be a paladin and/or inquisitor, possibly of Torag or Sarenrae.

I figure the way to play it is to tell the DM something like:
My character says [something truthful], then he tries to appear that he's lying when he intentionally [does something from the above action list].

Mechanically, It should be the beguiler's bluff or secret message vs observer's sense motive.

---

I'd like to know what you think, what problems you might predict, and what mechanics might be beneficial to making this work cleanly.

[Casual Viking]

As I see it, all you really need is a bad Diplomacy score, probably bad Intimidate as well. I have a Tian character with -2 Diplomacy, who is pleasant and polite....but his poor grasp of Common causes him to give the game away when he tries to bluff and accidentally use insulting idioms.

[derpdidruid]

I believe that it would indeed be a bluff check to make them think you are bluffing. Nothing more nothing less. What they do when they think you are lying to them is probably up to your gm.

[Shiroi]

Mechanically, you can always choose to fail a skill check to my knowledge. However, if your character is doing this on purpose? It'd be a bluff check to make yourself look like a liar when telling the truth. You're being deceptive, concealing information. That's a bluff check. Probably the first time that failing a bluff check means someone actually *believes* you... but then they also know you tried to fake them out.

I'd expect table variation, but as a DM I'd say if the character does this on purpose you'd make a bluff vs sense motive. If they pass the sense motive, they notice the fidgeting and believe you're lying... if they pass it by more than your ranks in bluff+5, they notice the deception and know that's just what you want them to think. If they fail the sense motive, they believe you without realizing you're trying to act like you lied. The longer the conversation goes on, the bigger the bonus i'd give them to their sense motive. Push your luck and they'll catch on to the game. I'd up it in increments of 1d6 per round or so, giving too much time and effort into the lies makes it obvious you're doing it on purpose, but over time you get a bigger window of reliability to pull off the scam if you invest effort into it.

[Qaianna]

Personally, I'd say this might fall under Diplomacy and/or Bluff, but the normal rules, and if you fail you come across as lying. My GM's done this before when one of our party was trying to convey truthful but unbelievable information.

[alexd1976]

I wouldn't say CHOOSING to deliberately deceive people is a behaviour a Paladin would typically have...

Is there not a flaw that might help you go towards this goal though?

[James Risner]

Æthernaut wrote:

My character says [something truthful], then he tries to appear that he's lying when he intentionally [does something from the above action list].

That sounds really cool on a web page, but I'd bet as soon as the second game happened everyone would be so over it.

I strongly recommend you make your character with low bluff, diplomacy, and charisma and just announce the first game session "my guy grew up in a pesh den and has strange manorisms" and leave it at that. Then use the mechanical low scores (Diplomacy) to convey your bad interactions while adding a little flavor each time.

[Æthernaut]

To Shirol,

That's ingenious.

Before I posted this, I ran it by my VC and he felt that Bluff didn't work that way. And I can see where he's coming from since the verbiage for bluff says "...you succeed at telling a lie." So, it may very well need some specific rule. Maybe Paizo could use a suggestion for a new application of bluff. They can call it something like misguide.

[Æthernaut]

alexd1976 wrote:

I wouldn't say CHOOSING to deliberately deceive people is a behaviour a Paladin would typically have...

This whole concept came about after somebody else playing a Paladin nearly compromised a PFS mission. There are those that believe that there is NO place for Paladins in Society play, considering the sometimes clock-and-dagger nature of the missions.

So I wanted to come up with a way that a Paladin could work. Is lying or bluffing the issue? If so, then let's find a way to not make it one. A Paladin needs a method of undercover-cop-speak that appeases his venture captain as well as his deity.

Where many paladins just flat-out can't lie, Torag's paladins can and will if its for the betterment of his people. That seemed to work. The next step was to shine a light on what is deception and how its not mutually exclusive from what is good - that type logic is just too sophomoric; anyone whose been in a long-term relationship will know that after the first time they're asked a question like "Does this make me look fat?"

'&' wrote:

Is there not a flaw that might help you go towards this goal though?

Unfortunately, flaws aren't PFS-approved. I suspect that its only a matter of time before there's a feat or a trait in print that does.

[Æthernaut]

James Risner wrote:

That sounds really cool on a web page, but I'd bet as soon as the second game happened everyone would be so over it.

You underestimate my ability to ROLE-play. Its what my fellow players enjoy best about my company. Because, heaven knows, its definitely not my ability to ROLL dice high; that rarely happens.

Plus, as I mentioned before, its a way to bring Paladins back into the fold of characters that other players can get along with, as opposed to just being Dudley Do-Rights who compromise faction missions.

[Val'bryn2]

Bluff would work. Lying about telling a lie is lying, and therefore falls under bluff.

[LazGrizzle]

How about: Flip the instances of the Bluff check... So you roll opposed Bluff Check when you want to tell the truth, but not when you want to lie.

[Æthernaut]

LazGrizzle wrote:

How about: Flip the instances of the Bluff check... So you roll opposed Bluff Check when you want to tell the truth, but not when you want to lie.

That might make the usage to convoluted. Where it might work as a house rule, some of the other suggestions are simpler and more intuitive.

[Qaianna]

I think there may be concerns about when to trigger it, it seems? ('I know when he's lying; his mouth is moving.' vs 'I'm in doubt and this guy seems shady.'.) That is probably only done via GM interpretation, the same as any other case he or she thinks you are trying to change someone's mind.

That said, I still think the Bluff/Diplomacy(/Intimidation) check should still suffice. You're using these skills to persuade someone of something. And just because you're telling the truth doesn't mean the NPC thinks you are.

Ultimately, the best way to do this would be to just roleplay as coming across shady/untrustworthy, don't go berserk in maxing out Bluff/Diplomacy, and rely on the GM to get it. (And the other players to not get pissed off, but that's between you and them, and if they're cool with it, that's fine. If they get sick of it, assume that you clean up your act between adventures or something, enough to come across as 'normal'.)