Trusting versus Suspicious

[Merlin Monroe et alia]

I'm having some trouble figuring out how to set up a Suspicious v. Trusting dilemma/challenge....

How do y'all do it? What are some good examples film y'all's games?

[Merlin Monroe et alia]

I think the difficulty is that I'm having trouble finding the action of Trusting-vs.-Suspicious conflicts.  Like, when I imagine various and sundry scenes in which I might want someone to make a rule, I find myself asking "Can you?" questions (which are Skill questions) rather than "Do you?" questions (which are Trait questions ~ mebbe also Passion questions? *shrug* I dunno, Passions are my biggest GM weakness atm).....

[Sir Alexios]

So depending where, when and what cultures your players are playing can have an interesting impact on how suspicion trusting can work. So in one of my games one of the players had a suspicion of 13 with a directed trait against Romans due to family history. So every time he goes and deals with Ulfius of Silchester or many of his representatives he is always second guessing their motives toward the Countess Elaine and caused a fair bit of problems for the county due to his mistrust of Romans.

The biggest thing with suspicions is you have to at times as the GM force the issue by telling the suspicious player slightly different information or how the knight might perceive a particular incident, or excuse for an action or inaction by those he is mistrustful of.

Now If the knight is famous for that trait then he should be second guessing everyone for almost every action they do and be planning a response for the worst case scenario due to their renowned paranoia.

Now for the opposite those with high trusting should almost be gullible and not see ulterior motives in what others are doing even if it seems obvious to other player knights. High trusting would be that you expect other people to keep their word.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Sir Alexios

[Darius West]

On 7/11/2021 at 1:57 PM, Merlin Monroe et alia said:

I'm having some trouble figuring out how to set up a Suspicious v. Trusting dilemma/challenge....

How do y'all do it? What are some good examples film y'all's games?

The easiest example is that there is an unexplained event, and somebody is accused... They profess their innocence and try to explain why it can't be them.  Do you believe them or not?

Or, your missus has been entertaining a foreign knight in secret, yet you catch wind of it.  Do you trust her to be a good and honorable woman who must have some honorable reason for her actions or assume infidelity?

Or you have a callow but enthusiastic follower.  Do you micromanage them using the excuse of "educating" them or rely on them to know their job?

A farmer is caught snooping around the camp of your army.  He claims he was considering selling his produce but didn't know enough heraldry to know if you were friend or foe to his lord.  Do you hang him as a spy or let him go (or insist on seeing his produce)?

Suspicious people believe the worst about their fellow human, while Trusting people hope for the best.  Neither is entirely foolish, but often the trusting person feels foolish when their expectations prove unrealistically optimistic.  

Suspicion and Trust are predicated on figuring out if someone is trustworthy or not, and that generally comes down to the use of the Intrigue skill, as that is the skill you use for cross-examination and discovering lies or truth.  In cases where the evidence is equivocal, that is when trusting/suspicious tests become important.  If I am not mistaken however, Trusting is a Christian Virtue, and as such erring on the side of trust is valuable to Christian characters for that reason.

[Morien]

8 hours ago, Darius West said:

Trusting is a Christian Virtue

Alas, it is not in KAP.

However, I agree with the sentiment (I think it was Voord 99 who said that in Discord) that since KAP is basically about playing 'good guys' (Chivalric Knights), and being Trusting is 'a good trait', trust in your fellow man and believing the best of them, it is better to err on the side of rewarding the Trusting rather than punishing them for not being paranoid enough (something many other RPGs fall into). Besides, it makes for a nicer gaming experience when the Players are not acting paranoid all the time. "No, the gazebo is not going to try to lull you into a false sense of security!" 🙂

[creativehum]

I'm not sure I've ever seen "Trusting" listed as a Christian Virtue -- I mean, in real life... not in KAP. 

But Le Morte D'Arthur has several characters who are very trusting, and some who are not. And that's how the passions arrived in the game.

I always turn back to the text of the game when I get stuck. 

Quote

TRUSTING/SUSPICIOUS

One who is Trusting tends to believe information without any inclination to suspect its falsity. An excessively Trusting person is gullible and credulous, perhaps even a dupe.

Suspicious indicates that a person is unlikely to believe what he hears unless proof is offered. An extremely Suspicious person is called a skeptic or a doubter. A naturally Suspicious person might still be extremely Spiritual, however.

Note: In some cases, jealousy is included under the Suspicious Trait. Thus when someone acts jealous, he may get a check for Suspicious.

Famous Characters: Sir Mordred is noted for his Suspicious and skeptical behavior.

When I think of this Trait I'm thinking of a young knight whose uncle wants to kill him, and offers to hunting with him. A Trusting Knight might well go if if he succeeds at his Trusting roll, even though others might see through the uncle's plan in a heartbeat. On the other hand, a kind knight might offer a famously Suspicious knight a hand up the social ladder, and the knight might reject it with great fear.

I think the simple baseline for tests here, in my view, "Would the situation at hand, for a reasonable person, provoke the need for more information or trigger suspicion?" Because, remember, the Traits are there for temperaments of impulse in place of rational thought. (Pendragon famously has no Intelligence stat!)

If you want to feature the nature of these Traits for a particular knight, you'll be building storylines that feature elements of trust and betrayal, it seems to me. That's where they are featured in Le Morte D'Arthur.

Edited January 25, 2022 by creativehum

[Tizun Thane]

57 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Im not sure I've ever seen "Trusting" listed as a Christian Virtue -- I mean, in real life... not in KAP. 

Sure it is ^^ It's called candor. An article about candor as a christian virtue in the Jane Austen novels

https://brendascox.wordpress.com/2018/02/01/jane-austen-faith-word-candour-and-jane-bennet/

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

think the simple baseline for tests here, in my view, "Would the situation at hand, for a reasonable person, provoke the need for more information or trigger suspicion?" Because, remember, the Traits are there for temperaments of impulse in place of rational thought. (Pendragon famously has no Intelligence stat!)

True, but the grey area is even better. If your enemy invites you to peace talks by giving you his word as a guarantee, is it stupid to believe in his good faith? Maybe, maybe not. Trusting/Suspicious.

[Darius West]

On 1/26/2022 at 2:11 AM, creativehum said:

I'm not sure I've ever seen "Trusting" listed as a Christian Virtue -- I mean, in real life... not in KAP. 

I disagree, I mean surely Trust is the foundation of faith?  Try telling a suspicious person about Balaam's ass and see how far you get. 😉

Edited January 27, 2022 by Darius West

[SDLeary]

On 1/25/2022 at 8:17 AM, Tizun Thane said:

Sure it is ^^ It's called candor. An article about candor as a christian virtue in the Jane Austen novels

I'm not seeing that. From all I can see, the only solid definition of "candor" is "frankness" or "honesty". Do you have a source for your definition?

SDLeary

[creativehum]

I did some digging a couple of days ago. The use of "candour" here seems to come from a single source: a sermon by an 18th century Scottish minister named Hugh Blair.

In part her writes of candour: 

Quote

It is perfectly consistent with extensive knowledge of the world, and with due attention to our own safety. In that various intercourse which we are obliged to carry on with persons of every different character, suspicion, to a certain degree, is a necessary guard. It is only when it exceeds the bounds of prudent caution that it degenerates into vice.

Meanwhile, turning back to the text of King Arthur Pendragon, and its definition of Trust: 

Quote

An excessively Trusting person is gullible and credulous, perhaps even a dupe.

... which seems to be the opposite of the definition the word Blair is concerned with.

Moreover, Blair is more concerned with this point:

Quote

[A person with candour] makes allowance for the mixture of evil with good, which is to be found in every human character. He expects none to be faultless; and he is unwilling to believe that there is any without some commendable quality. In the midst of many defects he can discover a virtue. Under the influence of personal resentment he can be just to the merit of an enemy. He is not hasty to judge, and he requires full evidence before he will condemn. As long as an action can be ascribed to different motives, he holds it as no mark of sagacity to impute it always to the worst. Where there is just ground for doubt, he keeps his judgment undecided. When he must condemn, he condemns with regret.

While this is, in my view, a commendable quality, it isn't what the text of KAP is talking about when it comes to Trusting. It seems to me that a Player Knight could be both Trusting and full of Candour, but still wouldn't make the two words the same thing.

As far as I can find, the only person who refers to "candour" as a Christian Virtue is Blair himself -- and those who quote Blair.

In short, I wasn't particularly taken with this line of reasoning.

As I said in another recent thread, any GM or group playing KAP can of course redefine concepts and ignore the text of KAP in any way they wish. But I think that often runs headlong into lots of complications and trouble. For me: I look to the text of the game, which takes the time to define and illustrate its terms, and use it as the key reference to move the game forward.

Edited January 29, 2022 by creativehum

[Tizun Thane]

I trust you both. English is not my native language. To me, someone with candor is a trusting person, but I could be wrong.

[creativehum]

2 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

I trust you both. English is not my native language. To me, someone with candor is a trusting person, but I could be wrong.

I can see how the two might get tangled!

Candor might be seen as the quality of being trustworthy. From a dictionary I just opened: 

Quote

Candor: The quality of being open and honest in expression; frankness.

It isn't how trusting you are, but but whether you are honest yourself. It is how you express yourself and how you behave in terms of being honesty, but not a quality of being trusting.

Another definition of candor is

Quote

the ability to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty.

This is not the same thing as trusting. Trusting is how one perceives other people:

Quote

Trusting: Showing or tending to have a belief in a person's honesty or sincerity; not suspicious.

In the case of candor, you are choosing how to perceive others as honestly as possible. In the case of "trusting" you are lacking discrimination, honest or otherwise. This is why KAP says an "extremely Trusting person is gullible and credulous, perhaps even a dupe." Meanwhile, a person of extreme candor would be someone who is able to judge situations free from discrimination or dishonesty, which is a completely different thing.

Edited January 31, 2022 by creativehum