Does a character who believes what they're saying have to make Deception checks?
$begingroup$
I have a player character that got so good at bluffing as a child he doesn't realize he's doing it; as such, the player is wondering if this can let him avoid having to make Deception checks since he truly believes what he's saying.
Here's his backstory:
10 years ago, when Andrew was just a young lad, he went to a bar on not necessarily the best side of town for his kind. He was just a young street urchin who didn’ know anything. He got harassed by some older university students; they started asking him really hard questions. Then he was asked one question which stuck out: "What are your thoughts on the demise of the Georgian empire?" Eager to impress, Andrew gave an explanation using big words he didn’t understand; none of them understood the words either, but didn’t want to admit it, so they said, "Okay, cool." They then asked a much more difficult question, to which they got another response with a lot of difficult words. Still not wanting to admit they didn’t understand, they asked a much more difficult series of questions; they didn’t understand those insights. Little did they know Andrew didn’t understand either.
Many hours and drinks later, Andrew had finally earned their trust and friendship and was invited to sit in some classes with them, at which point he had become adept at giving nonsense answers that sounded realistic. A professor asked a really difficult question that no one could answer, then called on Andrew. Andrew gave the most bullshit answer ever, but the professor didn’t understand; not wanting to look a fool, the professor eventually hired Andrew as his apprentice, and through a series of events, Andrew later graduated with honors from that university.
And here's the request: He doesn't make Deception checks because he doesn't know that he's bluffing. Is this possible by the rules?
Does a character who believes what they're saying have to make Deception checks?
dnd-5e rules-as-written balance social-combat
New contributor
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I have a player character that got so good at bluffing as a child he doesn't realize he's doing it; as such, the player is wondering if this can let him avoid having to make Deception checks since he truly believes what he's saying.
Here's his backstory:
10 years ago, when Andrew was just a young lad, he went to a bar on not necessarily the best side of town for his kind. He was just a young street urchin who didn’ know anything. He got harassed by some older university students; they started asking him really hard questions. Then he was asked one question which stuck out: "What are your thoughts on the demise of the Georgian empire?" Eager to impress, Andrew gave an explanation using big words he didn’t understand; none of them understood the words either, but didn’t want to admit it, so they said, "Okay, cool." They then asked a much more difficult question, to which they got another response with a lot of difficult words. Still not wanting to admit they didn’t understand, they asked a much more difficult series of questions; they didn’t understand those insights. Little did they know Andrew didn’t understand either.
Many hours and drinks later, Andrew had finally earned their trust and friendship and was invited to sit in some classes with them, at which point he had become adept at giving nonsense answers that sounded realistic. A professor asked a really difficult question that no one could answer, then called on Andrew. Andrew gave the most bullshit answer ever, but the professor didn’t understand; not wanting to look a fool, the professor eventually hired Andrew as his apprentice, and through a series of events, Andrew later graduated with honors from that university.
And here's the request: He doesn't make Deception checks because he doesn't know that he's bluffing. Is this possible by the rules?
Does a character who believes what they're saying have to make Deception checks?
dnd-5e rules-as-written balance social-combat
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to the site! Take the tour. You may want to edit this question so that it makes a clear distinction between the player and the character; as it stands, while context eventually makes it clear, initially it's not. Further, the story would benefit from using paragraphs. Finally, I'm not entirely sure of the overarcing question. Is the player seriously angling for a mechanical advantage for his character because his character's background saw the character surrounded by nincompoops? Are other players making similar requests? Anyway, thank you for participating and have fun!
$endgroup$
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
Why the rules-as-written tag?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
Note the [rules-as-written] tag info: "For questions that are about the logical interactions of a game's rules under a strictly literal reading. Not for questions about normal clarifications of the written rules. Answering rules questions with house-rules and opinions will already be restricted by our site's rules."
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
So perhaps this didn't occur to you, but why would "using words you don't know but pretending you do" not count in your mind as Deception? You are trying to convince people you are saying something meaningful when you aren't.
$endgroup$
– Zhuge
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Zhuge That's pretty much what my answer says.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
25 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I have a player character that got so good at bluffing as a child he doesn't realize he's doing it; as such, the player is wondering if this can let him avoid having to make Deception checks since he truly believes what he's saying.
Here's his backstory:
10 years ago, when Andrew was just a young lad, he went to a bar on not necessarily the best side of town for his kind. He was just a young street urchin who didn’ know anything. He got harassed by some older university students; they started asking him really hard questions. Then he was asked one question which stuck out: "What are your thoughts on the demise of the Georgian empire?" Eager to impress, Andrew gave an explanation using big words he didn’t understand; none of them understood the words either, but didn’t want to admit it, so they said, "Okay, cool." They then asked a much more difficult question, to which they got another response with a lot of difficult words. Still not wanting to admit they didn’t understand, they asked a much more difficult series of questions; they didn’t understand those insights. Little did they know Andrew didn’t understand either.
Many hours and drinks later, Andrew had finally earned their trust and friendship and was invited to sit in some classes with them, at which point he had become adept at giving nonsense answers that sounded realistic. A professor asked a really difficult question that no one could answer, then called on Andrew. Andrew gave the most bullshit answer ever, but the professor didn’t understand; not wanting to look a fool, the professor eventually hired Andrew as his apprentice, and through a series of events, Andrew later graduated with honors from that university.
And here's the request: He doesn't make Deception checks because he doesn't know that he's bluffing. Is this possible by the rules?
Does a character who believes what they're saying have to make Deception checks?
dnd-5e rules-as-written balance social-combat
New contributor
$endgroup$
I have a player character that got so good at bluffing as a child he doesn't realize he's doing it; as such, the player is wondering if this can let him avoid having to make Deception checks since he truly believes what he's saying.
Here's his backstory:
10 years ago, when Andrew was just a young lad, he went to a bar on not necessarily the best side of town for his kind. He was just a young street urchin who didn’ know anything. He got harassed by some older university students; they started asking him really hard questions. Then he was asked one question which stuck out: "What are your thoughts on the demise of the Georgian empire?" Eager to impress, Andrew gave an explanation using big words he didn’t understand; none of them understood the words either, but didn’t want to admit it, so they said, "Okay, cool." They then asked a much more difficult question, to which they got another response with a lot of difficult words. Still not wanting to admit they didn’t understand, they asked a much more difficult series of questions; they didn’t understand those insights. Little did they know Andrew didn’t understand either.
Many hours and drinks later, Andrew had finally earned their trust and friendship and was invited to sit in some classes with them, at which point he had become adept at giving nonsense answers that sounded realistic. A professor asked a really difficult question that no one could answer, then called on Andrew. Andrew gave the most bullshit answer ever, but the professor didn’t understand; not wanting to look a fool, the professor eventually hired Andrew as his apprentice, and through a series of events, Andrew later graduated with honors from that university.
And here's the request: He doesn't make Deception checks because he doesn't know that he's bluffing. Is this possible by the rules?
Does a character who believes what they're saying have to make Deception checks?
dnd-5e rules-as-written balance social-combat
dnd-5e rules-as-written balance social-combat
New contributor
New contributor
edited 19 mins ago
V2Blast
21.1k361133
21.1k361133
New contributor
asked 1 hour ago
user51845user51845
191
191
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to the site! Take the tour. You may want to edit this question so that it makes a clear distinction between the player and the character; as it stands, while context eventually makes it clear, initially it's not. Further, the story would benefit from using paragraphs. Finally, I'm not entirely sure of the overarcing question. Is the player seriously angling for a mechanical advantage for his character because his character's background saw the character surrounded by nincompoops? Are other players making similar requests? Anyway, thank you for participating and have fun!
$endgroup$
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
Why the rules-as-written tag?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
Note the [rules-as-written] tag info: "For questions that are about the logical interactions of a game's rules under a strictly literal reading. Not for questions about normal clarifications of the written rules. Answering rules questions with house-rules and opinions will already be restricted by our site's rules."
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
So perhaps this didn't occur to you, but why would "using words you don't know but pretending you do" not count in your mind as Deception? You are trying to convince people you are saying something meaningful when you aren't.
$endgroup$
– Zhuge
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Zhuge That's pretty much what my answer says.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
25 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to the site! Take the tour. You may want to edit this question so that it makes a clear distinction between the player and the character; as it stands, while context eventually makes it clear, initially it's not. Further, the story would benefit from using paragraphs. Finally, I'm not entirely sure of the overarcing question. Is the player seriously angling for a mechanical advantage for his character because his character's background saw the character surrounded by nincompoops? Are other players making similar requests? Anyway, thank you for participating and have fun!
$endgroup$
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
Why the rules-as-written tag?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
Note the [rules-as-written] tag info: "For questions that are about the logical interactions of a game's rules under a strictly literal reading. Not for questions about normal clarifications of the written rules. Answering rules questions with house-rules and opinions will already be restricted by our site's rules."
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
So perhaps this didn't occur to you, but why would "using words you don't know but pretending you do" not count in your mind as Deception? You are trying to convince people you are saying something meaningful when you aren't.
$endgroup$
– Zhuge
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Zhuge That's pretty much what my answer says.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
25 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to the site! Take the tour. You may want to edit this question so that it makes a clear distinction between the player and the character; as it stands, while context eventually makes it clear, initially it's not. Further, the story would benefit from using paragraphs. Finally, I'm not entirely sure of the overarcing question. Is the player seriously angling for a mechanical advantage for his character because his character's background saw the character surrounded by nincompoops? Are other players making similar requests? Anyway, thank you for participating and have fun!
$endgroup$
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to the site! Take the tour. You may want to edit this question so that it makes a clear distinction between the player and the character; as it stands, while context eventually makes it clear, initially it's not. Further, the story would benefit from using paragraphs. Finally, I'm not entirely sure of the overarcing question. Is the player seriously angling for a mechanical advantage for his character because his character's background saw the character surrounded by nincompoops? Are other players making similar requests? Anyway, thank you for participating and have fun!
$endgroup$
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Why the rules-as-written tag?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
Why the rules-as-written tag?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
Note the [rules-as-written] tag info: "For questions that are about the logical interactions of a game's rules under a strictly literal reading. Not for questions about normal clarifications of the written rules. Answering rules questions with house-rules and opinions will already be restricted by our site's rules."
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
Note the [rules-as-written] tag info: "For questions that are about the logical interactions of a game's rules under a strictly literal reading. Not for questions about normal clarifications of the written rules. Answering rules questions with house-rules and opinions will already be restricted by our site's rules."
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
So perhaps this didn't occur to you, but why would "using words you don't know but pretending you do" not count in your mind as Deception? You are trying to convince people you are saying something meaningful when you aren't.
$endgroup$
– Zhuge
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
So perhaps this didn't occur to you, but why would "using words you don't know but pretending you do" not count in your mind as Deception? You are trying to convince people you are saying something meaningful when you aren't.
$endgroup$
– Zhuge
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Zhuge That's pretty much what my answer says.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Zhuge That's pretty much what my answer says.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
25 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Andrew knows he's bluffing
Your overall question is very interesting: does a person need to make a Deception check if they believe what they are saying is true? I would say "no." In that situation, the person would need to make a different check (likely Persuasion) to convince others of what they are saying, even if what they are saying is false. For example, an indoctrinated cult member who believes that a ritual which will summon his deity will bring lasting peace and prosperity to the world might use Persuasion to sell others on this idea (even though in reality, unbeknownst to him, the deity will destroy the world once summoned).
But "Andrew" in your example knows he's not telling the truth.
As you mentioned in your example, Andrew doesn't know what he's talking about. Andrew gave answers "using big words he didn’t understand", and gave "the most bullshit answer ever." He didn't know what his answers meant, and he knew that he didn't know what his answers meant. He may have believed that his answers turned out to be correct based on everyone else's responses, but at all times he knew that he didn't know what the answer was supposed to be.
Andrew may believe that he's so lucky his answers will always be right, but that's part of lying: believing that you are so slick you can convince anyone of anything. He may believe that everyone at the college is doing the same thing he is (and he may be right). But both of those things are different than saying he believes he actually knows the answers (which he doesn't: he doesn't even know what the words he's using mean).
Let's say that Andrew says something like "Applying any singular cause to the Georgian crisis is postmodernly reductionist, and the height of all antiquarian thinking." Andrew is being deceptive about something. He's not being deceptive about the truth or falsehood of his statement: in fact, he has no opinion on that matter (since he doesn't know what he's saying, he can't possibly have any belief about whether it's true or not). But he's still lying: his lie is that he understands what he's saying (and that if you don't, it's your own foolishness at fault). And for that, he needs a Deception check.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
user51845 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140051%2fdoes-a-character-who-believes-what-theyre-saying-have-to-make-deception-checks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Andrew knows he's bluffing
Your overall question is very interesting: does a person need to make a Deception check if they believe what they are saying is true? I would say "no." In that situation, the person would need to make a different check (likely Persuasion) to convince others of what they are saying, even if what they are saying is false. For example, an indoctrinated cult member who believes that a ritual which will summon his deity will bring lasting peace and prosperity to the world might use Persuasion to sell others on this idea (even though in reality, unbeknownst to him, the deity will destroy the world once summoned).
But "Andrew" in your example knows he's not telling the truth.
As you mentioned in your example, Andrew doesn't know what he's talking about. Andrew gave answers "using big words he didn’t understand", and gave "the most bullshit answer ever." He didn't know what his answers meant, and he knew that he didn't know what his answers meant. He may have believed that his answers turned out to be correct based on everyone else's responses, but at all times he knew that he didn't know what the answer was supposed to be.
Andrew may believe that he's so lucky his answers will always be right, but that's part of lying: believing that you are so slick you can convince anyone of anything. He may believe that everyone at the college is doing the same thing he is (and he may be right). But both of those things are different than saying he believes he actually knows the answers (which he doesn't: he doesn't even know what the words he's using mean).
Let's say that Andrew says something like "Applying any singular cause to the Georgian crisis is postmodernly reductionist, and the height of all antiquarian thinking." Andrew is being deceptive about something. He's not being deceptive about the truth or falsehood of his statement: in fact, he has no opinion on that matter (since he doesn't know what he's saying, he can't possibly have any belief about whether it's true or not). But he's still lying: his lie is that he understands what he's saying (and that if you don't, it's your own foolishness at fault). And for that, he needs a Deception check.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Andrew knows he's bluffing
Your overall question is very interesting: does a person need to make a Deception check if they believe what they are saying is true? I would say "no." In that situation, the person would need to make a different check (likely Persuasion) to convince others of what they are saying, even if what they are saying is false. For example, an indoctrinated cult member who believes that a ritual which will summon his deity will bring lasting peace and prosperity to the world might use Persuasion to sell others on this idea (even though in reality, unbeknownst to him, the deity will destroy the world once summoned).
But "Andrew" in your example knows he's not telling the truth.
As you mentioned in your example, Andrew doesn't know what he's talking about. Andrew gave answers "using big words he didn’t understand", and gave "the most bullshit answer ever." He didn't know what his answers meant, and he knew that he didn't know what his answers meant. He may have believed that his answers turned out to be correct based on everyone else's responses, but at all times he knew that he didn't know what the answer was supposed to be.
Andrew may believe that he's so lucky his answers will always be right, but that's part of lying: believing that you are so slick you can convince anyone of anything. He may believe that everyone at the college is doing the same thing he is (and he may be right). But both of those things are different than saying he believes he actually knows the answers (which he doesn't: he doesn't even know what the words he's using mean).
Let's say that Andrew says something like "Applying any singular cause to the Georgian crisis is postmodernly reductionist, and the height of all antiquarian thinking." Andrew is being deceptive about something. He's not being deceptive about the truth or falsehood of his statement: in fact, he has no opinion on that matter (since he doesn't know what he's saying, he can't possibly have any belief about whether it's true or not). But he's still lying: his lie is that he understands what he's saying (and that if you don't, it's your own foolishness at fault). And for that, he needs a Deception check.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Andrew knows he's bluffing
Your overall question is very interesting: does a person need to make a Deception check if they believe what they are saying is true? I would say "no." In that situation, the person would need to make a different check (likely Persuasion) to convince others of what they are saying, even if what they are saying is false. For example, an indoctrinated cult member who believes that a ritual which will summon his deity will bring lasting peace and prosperity to the world might use Persuasion to sell others on this idea (even though in reality, unbeknownst to him, the deity will destroy the world once summoned).
But "Andrew" in your example knows he's not telling the truth.
As you mentioned in your example, Andrew doesn't know what he's talking about. Andrew gave answers "using big words he didn’t understand", and gave "the most bullshit answer ever." He didn't know what his answers meant, and he knew that he didn't know what his answers meant. He may have believed that his answers turned out to be correct based on everyone else's responses, but at all times he knew that he didn't know what the answer was supposed to be.
Andrew may believe that he's so lucky his answers will always be right, but that's part of lying: believing that you are so slick you can convince anyone of anything. He may believe that everyone at the college is doing the same thing he is (and he may be right). But both of those things are different than saying he believes he actually knows the answers (which he doesn't: he doesn't even know what the words he's using mean).
Let's say that Andrew says something like "Applying any singular cause to the Georgian crisis is postmodernly reductionist, and the height of all antiquarian thinking." Andrew is being deceptive about something. He's not being deceptive about the truth or falsehood of his statement: in fact, he has no opinion on that matter (since he doesn't know what he's saying, he can't possibly have any belief about whether it's true or not). But he's still lying: his lie is that he understands what he's saying (and that if you don't, it's your own foolishness at fault). And for that, he needs a Deception check.
$endgroup$
Andrew knows he's bluffing
Your overall question is very interesting: does a person need to make a Deception check if they believe what they are saying is true? I would say "no." In that situation, the person would need to make a different check (likely Persuasion) to convince others of what they are saying, even if what they are saying is false. For example, an indoctrinated cult member who believes that a ritual which will summon his deity will bring lasting peace and prosperity to the world might use Persuasion to sell others on this idea (even though in reality, unbeknownst to him, the deity will destroy the world once summoned).
But "Andrew" in your example knows he's not telling the truth.
As you mentioned in your example, Andrew doesn't know what he's talking about. Andrew gave answers "using big words he didn’t understand", and gave "the most bullshit answer ever." He didn't know what his answers meant, and he knew that he didn't know what his answers meant. He may have believed that his answers turned out to be correct based on everyone else's responses, but at all times he knew that he didn't know what the answer was supposed to be.
Andrew may believe that he's so lucky his answers will always be right, but that's part of lying: believing that you are so slick you can convince anyone of anything. He may believe that everyone at the college is doing the same thing he is (and he may be right). But both of those things are different than saying he believes he actually knows the answers (which he doesn't: he doesn't even know what the words he's using mean).
Let's say that Andrew says something like "Applying any singular cause to the Georgian crisis is postmodernly reductionist, and the height of all antiquarian thinking." Andrew is being deceptive about something. He's not being deceptive about the truth or falsehood of his statement: in fact, he has no opinion on that matter (since he doesn't know what he's saying, he can't possibly have any belief about whether it's true or not). But he's still lying: his lie is that he understands what he's saying (and that if you don't, it's your own foolishness at fault). And for that, he needs a Deception check.
edited 16 mins ago
answered 39 mins ago
GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme
19.5k371120
19.5k371120
add a comment |
add a comment |
user51845 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user51845 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user51845 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user51845 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140051%2fdoes-a-character-who-believes-what-theyre-saying-have-to-make-deception-checks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Welcome to the site! Take the tour. You may want to edit this question so that it makes a clear distinction between the player and the character; as it stands, while context eventually makes it clear, initially it's not. Further, the story would benefit from using paragraphs. Finally, I'm not entirely sure of the overarcing question. Is the player seriously angling for a mechanical advantage for his character because his character's background saw the character surrounded by nincompoops? Are other players making similar requests? Anyway, thank you for participating and have fun!
$endgroup$
– Hey I Can Chan
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
Why the rules-as-written tag?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
56 mins ago
$begingroup$
Note the [rules-as-written] tag info: "For questions that are about the logical interactions of a game's rules under a strictly literal reading. Not for questions about normal clarifications of the written rules. Answering rules questions with house-rules and opinions will already be restricted by our site's rules."
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
So perhaps this didn't occur to you, but why would "using words you don't know but pretending you do" not count in your mind as Deception? You are trying to convince people you are saying something meaningful when you aren't.
$endgroup$
– Zhuge
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Zhuge That's pretty much what my answer says.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
25 mins ago