Lie: P:E would be a better game if all our dialogue options express our character's true intentions exactly

[Death Machine Miyagi]

The thread about NPCs who lie to you, give contradictory accounts or otherwise mislead you in various ways reminded me of this feature of Torment. As a feature, it has suffered more terribly from the move to fully voiced dialogue in newer RPGs (and the consequent restriction of dialogue options) than any other.

 

The feature in question being, of course, the ability to be a bold-faced liar. To have dialogue clearly marked so that the game knows when you're only saying something to twist the NPC(s) around your little finger, to manipulate them to some greater end, or just to let them down easily.

 

In Torment, you could lie quite a bit. When complimenting a companion, you could lie to flatter them, or say the exact same words as truth. You could lie to Mourns-for-Trees when he asks you for help in believing his trees will grow strong and hardy again, instead inwardly imagining them burned and twisted...just for sheer evilness. You could lie to Deionarra towards the end of the game, spinning the same manipulative scam the Practical Incarnation was running against her by telling her that he truly did love her but that her sacrifice was necessary. In all these cases, spinning the lie resulted in a different result than telling the truth, even when speaking the exact same words.

 

In the morality thread some pages back, I mentioned that I love manipulative villains rather than baby eating villains...both when fighting against them and when playing as one. It is impossible to play as a clever manipulative villain without a very generous number of dialogue options for lying, lying, lying. Lying to your companions, lying to your allies, lying to your enemies. Lying about your motivations, lying about what you've done, lying about what you will do. The more we're offered the chance to not only be manipulated by NPCs, but to also manipulate in turn, the better.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Lysen]

That's a cool idea. There is one difference though - there will be no morality meter in PE. And in Planescape lying only affected your alignment, it didn't have other consequences. In PE, I would have suggested a different approach - make it a skill-based check. If you have high streetwise skill, for example, you will be able to realize that NPC is lying to you (and vice versa!).

[Tamerlane]

Even if it's purely for flavour, it still makes the player feel cool because Roleplaying! is cool.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Tamerlane

[Delterius]

If Obsidian can support Bluffing, I'm all for it.

 

But it took me so long to get the title that I'm a little ashamed.

[Tale]

Are we talking about "[Lie] I will save the children" options or just the options to say "I will save the children" and you simply don't do it?

 

I prefer the latter, in all honesty.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Are we talking about "[Lie] I will save the children" options or just the options to say "I will save the children" and you simply don't do it?

 

I prefer the latter, in all honesty.

 

Depends on the lie. With some lies, the words itself are what is important. With others, the action that follows it defines whether it is a lie. The example you cite is the latter...so long as the game recognizes that you promised to save the children and did not do so, and NPCs respond accordingly.

 

In the BG series, unfortunately, your actions were usually inseparable from your words. If you said, 'I will save the children', then the game would proceed under the expectation that children saving would be coming up. If you did not save the children, and instead just walked away, all it really meant was that you didn't do a quest and didn't get the reward. You wouldn't be called on it if you didn't do it. The only time you would be called on it is if you said, straight out to begin with, 'No, I hate children. Let the children die.'

 

This actually got worse over time, in some cases, wherein the words were often all that was needed for a bump on the karma meter and for the game to railroad you into saving the children as you said you would.

[Delterius]

Are we talking about "[Lie] I will save the children" options or just the options to say "I will save the children" and you simply don't do it?

 

I prefer the latter, in all honesty.

Both options would be ideal, I believe.

[Tale]

With some lies, the words itself are what is important.

For those lies, what's the point in a mechanical distinction? It's exclusively in intent, a value of no worth outside an alignment system.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

With some lies, the words itself are what is important.

For those lies, what's the point in a mechanical distinction? It's exclusively in intent, a value of no worth outside an alignment system.

 

Because by marking it as 'lie', even if no one else notices, the game itself can make note that your character is being intentionally disingenuous, which means that the follow-up from both your character and NPCs can change accordingly if necessary. Perhaps an NPC is able to tell that you're lying and calls you out on it. Perhaps the lie comes in the form of soothing flattery, telling an NPC what a valuable part of the team you think they are when you actually have no such lofty opinion of them. The game can then make the distinction for future interaction that in reality your relationship with said NPC is not based on genuine mutual respect, but manipulation and empty words on your part, which could then come out in some way later in the game.

 

The marker of 'lie' is, in short, a way of allowing the game itself to know what kind of person you really are deep inside, even if the practical results are similar. This isn't as important as it would be in a game with a karma system, but for particularly clever NPCs who can see through you, or for particular circumstances in which being genuine or false has an impact on how the game plays out, it is a nice touch.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Delterius]

With some lies, the words itself are what is important.

For those lies, what's the point in a mechanical distinction? It's exclusively in intent, a value of no worth outside an alignment system.

 

Well, the situation you proposed earlier isn't necessarily binary. If there are only two possibilities, saving the children or not, then the distinction isn't necessary. But what about trying to save the children but failling? It might be easier on the programmers to differentiate earlier wether you're lying or not.

[Tale]

Because by marking it as 'lie', even if no one else notices, the game itself can make note that your character is being intentionally disingenuous, which means that the follow-up from both your character

Ideally, the game should offer the followup anyway. The game shouldn't have to keep track, it should just assume it's always possible the player was.

 

the NPCs can change accordingly if necessary.

This is only interesting if there's a bluff mechanic. See my next point for the problem with it, though.

 

Perhaps an NPC is able to tell that you're lying and calls you out on it. Perhaps the lie comes in the form of soothing flattery, telling an NPC what a valuable part of the team you think they are when you actually have no such lofty opinion of them.

If the game is going to offer the [Lie] option and the [Truth] option, but then penalize the player by making the Lie seen through, then all you're doing is punishing the player for being honest with the game. It's kicking the player for playing along. Which is just kind of a jerk move.

 

The best method I have found is to immediately assume the player is telling the truth, but allow for the player to act or follow it up contrary. And you should never turn words into actions for the player. If a character is to assume the player is lying, they should do it according solely to their characterization or based on the facts of behavior.

 

Well, the situation you proposed earlier isn't necessarily binary. If there are only two possibilities, saving the children or not, then the distinction isn't necessary. But what about trying to save the children but failling? It might be easier on the programmers to differentiate earlier wether you're lying or not.

What about trying to save the children but failing? What exactly do you expect the endgame of that scenario to be, if not identical? If the game treats it any differently, then it threatens to invalidate the deception.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

If the game is going to offer the [Lie] option and the [Truth] option, but then penalize the player by making the Lie seen through, then all you're doing is punishing the player for being honest with the game. It's kicking the player for playing along. Which is just kind of a jerk move.

 

This operates under the assumption that every NPC will disapprove of you being a manipulative bastard. Perhaps the lie will not be called out at that moment by whoever you're lying to, but later an NPC you meet will see what you have been doing all game and will be impressed with your ability to keep your followers under your heel and the world around you twisted around your little finger. Perhaps you will win an ally in such a way.

 

Really, though, the 'Lie' label is secondary. I think its helpful for alerting the game to your real motivations, but I can see your objections against it. Its not really my main point. My main point is that dialogue spoken in-game should not be assumed by the game to be your true feelings and/or intent, however that is accomplished, and I think on that we agree. Having agreed to do something, the game does best when it takes into account any number of the varied and twisted motivations that might have led you to agree to do that thing, with corresponding dialogue options as your quest continues and a corresponding ability to completely betray the people who originally put you on the quest. Having said something, you should be allowed to make it clear later every word was pure manipulation, nothing more than pretty words to further your goals.

 

Obviously they can't do this for everything; the amount of writing would be impossibly vast. But the more flexibility the character is allowed with the dialogue the better.

[Delterius]

Well, the situation you proposed earlier isn't necessarily binary. If there are only two possibilities, saving the children or not, then the distinction isn't necessary. But what about trying to save the children but failling? It might be easier on the programmers to differentiate earlier wether you're lying or not.

What about trying to save the children but failing? What exactly do you expect the endgame of that scenario to be, if not identical? If the game treats it any differently, then it threatens to invalidate the deception.

Let's say the child is endangered by a gang and that you have a few minutes to keep them from dying. I could lie and do nothing, I could lie and even walk away - but I could also lie and pretend to save the child, engaging a few of the enemies but making no real effort at it.

[Tale]

Let's say the child is endangered by a gang and that you have a few minutes to keep them from dying. I could lie and do nothing, I could lie and even walk away - but I could also lie and pretend to save the child, engaging a few of the enemies but making no real effort at it.

Yes. But the question is why do you need a [Lie] tag to do any of those things?

 

Having said something, you should be allowed to make it clear later every word was pure manipulation, nothing more than pretty words to further your goals.

I agree on most of what you're saying, but this is the part I find unnecessary. If I was being manipulative, that should be between me and nobody.

 

Quite frankly, this is exactly the playstyle I've been using for years. We all have. We flatter the NPCs, we say what they want to hear, we do the quests the way they want them done. And we do it like sociopaths, we do it not because we agree, we do it because we expect to get something out of it. And that's how I've justified my Lawful Evil characters for years.