Isn't there, in fact, something fundamentally good about truth and bad about falsehood? Some such idea seems to underlie the near-universal agreement that lying is in itself bad.*
One argument against lying is that it simply takes longer to tell a lie than to tell the truth. Truth-telling is easier than lie-telling. And therefore truth-tellers lead idler lives than than lie-tellers.
Truth-telling simply requires recollecting what one knows, and saying it. But lying requires an extra stage, during which a falsehood is constructed to replace true recollection.
And indeed, for a lie to be plausible it may need to be surrounded with other supportive lies. For example, if one is to lie that one was not at some place at some time, it may become necessary to support this lie with another lie about where you were at that time.
When lies are added to lies, to form an entire tissue of lies, they form an alternative narrative, a separate reality. An habitual liar must remember both a true narrative and a false narrative.
But superimposing one 'reality' onto another reality is ultimately an impossible task. For however much reality is painted over, there is always some part of reality that remains unpainted. Reality is always shining through somewhere. Truth is complete, and lies are always incomplete. In the long run, all lies are unsustainable. And anything founded upon a lie will eventually disintegrate.