In a campaign in which I'm playing, there was a bit of conflict during our last session. I'm alright with Character-on-Character conflict(in moderation), but this one turned to Player-on-Player(s).
Person A has been planning with Person B to rob Person C (kind of; they're going to loot the sacred treasure ground of Person C's god, which he would be very against).
Person A managed to trick Person C into thinking they would be robbing a different dungeon, and convinced Person C that only one person could enter the dungeon.
Person C was going to go into the bag of holding and not be aware of the location of the dungeon until we were in it. Player C was aware of their plan, but his character (Person C) was not.
Person C did a Sense Motive check on Person A, and got the result of feeling like he wasn't being entirely honest, but not knowing what about.
This is where the check question comes in.
Person B noticed that Person C didn't seem to be trusting Person A.
Person B made a Bluff check to convince Person C that the only thing Person A was being dishonest about was that he wasn't planning on splitting the loot fairly (Person A is a rogue, and can be put into the stereotype of being dishonest).
Person C rolled a Perception check to counter the Bluff, and did not beat it. We declared that he was still clueless about the ultimate plan. Shortly thereafter, Person B was being bluffed by an NPC, and rolled a Sense Motive check.
Person C declared that he was unaware that Sense Motive countered Bluff, and should get to roll again, and did so, receiving a higher result.
Player B was pretty upset, declaring that the bonuses that Person C has in sense motive and perception were the same, so the result should remain the same, but Player C was firm in his belief that his new Sense Motive roll should be the one that counts.
There was a lot of contention on that one roll, everyone speaking over the other, trying to say their point of view. The GM in the end (I believe) felt bad for Player C, and allowed him to get a result between the two, where he believed what Person B said, but had suspicions there was something else. (He either felt bad for him, or truly agreed with him, I don't know which.) Players A and B were kind of sore about the situation, and I wanted to know what should be done in such a situation, should the need arise again.
When a player rolls for the wrong skill, should they get to reroll in the correct skill, or keep the original roll, but adjust the total score based on bonuses?
Person A/B/C refers to the character being played.
Player A/B/C refers to the person playing the character.
Is the main problem in our group the fact that some PCs are willing to raid another's sacred place? Yes.
We all know each other very well outside of sessions, and each has made it clear to each other what their character's intentions were, and the GM has approved it.
Character A is very neutral in alignment, and does things like this often. Everyone expects it. Player B wasn't there in the session when Person A learned of the treasure, and in the next session when Person A came with the idea to Person B, B was under the impression that the treasure was lost, that not even the tribe of people who worshipped the deity were aware of its location, and thought "Yeah sure! It will be fun to find a treasure."
Only after agreeing to help Person A did Person B learn that it was considered sacred-but he didn't know how he could back out of his promise.
The point at which this became a matter of conflict was when the die roll was contested. While perhaps A is morally questionable to say the least, and perhaps B is a coward for not telling A that this was a bad idea, I still think the die roll was the biggest issue for our party.
I was unable to find anything addressing this in the rules. If there is something in the rules, I'd love to be pointed to it.