Various people take a different positions on this. In particular, some people claim that just because a scout report shows that a particular noble was in the region doesn't prove that *they* were responsible for the explosion that destroyed the fortifications, even if they were the only noble there. After all, there were 10,000 other people in that region. Who's to say that one of the other people in the region didn't do it? "I was there, but I didn't do it." These people sometimes argue that you should believe another character (who is of the high nobility) over the word of a minor, possibly non-noble, functionary. So if the noble says "I didn't do it", but the functionary (i.e. game generated message) says "He was spotted at the scene of the crime", obviously the functionary is lying, and to believe them over the word of the noble would be bad RP.
Others will point out that a lifetime of experience for our characters has proven that these things never happen except when a noble is present. If it doesn't happen except when a noble is present, then only nobles do it, so therefore the noble is responsible. They argue that this is something that their characters would notice, and that to have their characters ignore the connection would be to play their characters as being stupid. These people point out that the minor functionaries (i.e. geame generated messages) have never lied or been wrong in the past, so trusting them is an obvious no-brainer, and to doubt them would, again, mean their character is an idiot.
After playing BattleMaster for a while, it is pretty clear that the people who follow these different philosophies are pretty well entrenched in their beliefs. If Bedwyr were here, he could launch a pretty extensive diatribe about it. (He's in the "my character isn't stupid" camp.)
Which play style is "right"? I personally don't think there is a right or wrong. Play your character however you want, and let other people play their character their own way. If you want your character to be fooled by another character's clever tale, go for it. If you don't, then don't. And don't expect some other player to play your chosen way.
Well, one I've heard recently in-game, is the idea that a peasant could have been the one that did the assassination attempt, even though there was only one other noble in the region.
