My Honest Opinion

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Icelander

GURPS Honest is a compulsion. It interferes with the ability of the character to distinguish between serious crimes and the innumerable technical violations of laws that normal people engage in as part of normal life. It also comes bundled with a delusion, that other people also have this compulsion.

No it doesn't and no it doesn't. Honest people are normally perfectly capable of distinguishing between levels of severity of crime. They simply feel bad about committing even minor crimes. But they are not rendered incapable of understanding that police will not react the same way to every crime. Nor do they have a delusion. They only assume that other people are Honest until they have seen proof to the contrary. Seeing someone commit a crime is proof to the contrary. And if your interpretation of Honest is more extreme than the reactions you'd see from Superman or Constable Frasier from Due South...you're doing it wrong because the disadvantage was created for them.

Antitrust laws are a lot more recent than stock markets. In the vast majority of historical and even some current jurisdictions, a character may promise a certain number of stock certificates and deliver them, all right, but lie through his teeth about the value of the company. Nothing illegal about it.

No. He can't. He can sell crappy investments, but he can not promise something valuable and deliver something he knows to be valueless. If he sells snake oil and gives a spiel about the medical benefits of his product then he has to believe that snake oil has medical benefits. Otherwise he isn't delivering on his promise.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

What's more it is both wrong and unfair to characterize Honest as "a pathological belief in an external authority as a source of immutable ethical law." Nothing prevents an Honest person from working to change a law it considers unjust by lawful means. An Honest person is usually not a rebel (although they [I]can[I] rebel to restore a previous status they consider more legitimate) but they are free (as far as Honesty goes) to be a reformer or a martyr.

General George C. Crook volunteered to be personally sued by the Apache tribe after he had subjugated them. Everyone present knew they were really sueing the United states government, but he suggested this as a substitute even though he was following the policies of said government.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

And if your interpretation of Honest is more extreme than the reactions you'd see from Superman or Constable Frasier from Due South...you're doing it wrong because the disadvantage was created for them.

Both characters exist in extremely parochial settings where the laws that the character must follow are more or less considered synonomous with Justice and the American Way. Those characters can only have GURPS Honesty if the GM promises that no place that they ever visit will ever be considered to have any laws that differ substantially from the personal moral code of the character.

Also, in any media I've seen, both characters routinely broke laws, but because the writers (and most viewers) don't really know much about law, it doesn't matter.

GURPS Honesty can work for 'heroic' progatonists in children's fiction, but in any setting remotely resembling the real world, it is by no means a heroic trait. That's because the more any setting resembles the real world, the greater the divide between 'trying to do what is right' and 'compelled to obey all laws and do your best to make sure everyone else does too' becomes.

[trooper6]

About compulsive tattling. That would depend on the laws of the land I'd think.

Find law says: "Failure to Report Laws
While in the majority of states failure to report isn't illegal, a small minority of states have enacted laws punishing individuals who fail to report certain types of crimes to the authorities. Under Texas law, for example, you can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor for failing to report an offense that resulted in serious bodily injury or death. In Ohio, on the other hand, it's illegal to knowingly fail to report a felony."

So a Texan with the Honesty Disad would have to report an offense that resulted in serious bodily injury or death and an Ohioan would have to report any felonies they know about.

There are also Accessory After the Fact laws.

So I suppose some of this really has to do with the laws of the land.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Both characters exist in extremely parochial settings where the laws that the character must follow are more or less considered synonomous with Justice and the American Way. Those characters can only have GURPS Honesty if the GM promises that no place that they ever visit will ever be considered to have any laws that differ substantially from the personal moral code of the character.

Or not. Actually on a visit you can probably just note that you don't like the local laws, grit your teeth, finish what you're doing and go home. The GM has to actually work at creating moral dilemmas like "Oh no, a runaway slave has stashed itself in your luggage!" (or <shudder> that incredibly stupid orc nursery) before it actually becomes an issue,

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Icelander

..
GURPS Honesty can work for 'heroic' progatonists in children's fiction, but in any setting remotely resembling the real world, it is by no means a heroic trait. That's because the more any setting resembles the real world, the greater the divide between 'trying to do what is right' and 'compelled to obey all laws and do your best to make sure everyone else does too' becomes.

Except that authors, including Kromm I believe, have said that it's not about laws of the local jurisdiction but some! collection of rules/laws. Such that a soldier could be Honest while blatantly breaking the local laws.

[Celjabba]

Reading the RAW, the text does includes several "backdoors" to keep the disadvantage in check.

A GM can interpret a disadvantage as they see fit, but I believe one should look at the spirit, not the most literal narrow interpretation.
Otherwise, a character with pyromania and low to average will is dead, homeless or in jail, setting fire to whatever can burn, including his own clothes if nothing else is near, as soon as he got matches or (god forbid) a lighter.

An Gurps-honest character usually follow the law, even when it inconvenience him, and accept to pay the price should he break it. He will also try to convince other to do so, by example and proportionate influencing.
Unless he live under mandatory delation law, he doesn't automatically have to report law-breaker (but see above about trying to convince them).

He is not, barring other disadvantages, a mindless law abiding automaton.

He also assume honesty from other, unless proven otherwise. Which to me is one of the worse part of the disadvantage ! He can be easily manipulated or blindsided.

[The Colonel]

Do we assume that Honest also includes an inherent belief in the legitimacy of the state? That could bear on the "will/may call police to report crime" issue - an honest person with no loyalty to government might be more prone to rely on peer pressure and/or address the matter within their community, whilst a state endorsing character might be more likely to hand matters to the proper authorities.

[Boomerang]

In my opinion the default for Honesty is that the laws of the land are reasonable. If the laws of the land are unreasonable the disadvantage should be worth -15 or -20 points.

[Gnome]

The principle of charity should apply here.
Does the disadvantage represent a pathology--compulsive law-following, even against one's own better judgment, which is extremely rare to nonexistent, and which I've never seen in fiction? Or does it represent a moral stance--the belief that one should follow the law of the land because it's the right thing to do, which is common in real life and perhaps even more common in fiction?
The more charitable reading of the text is the latter, even if the former might be a correct "literalist" reading of what's in the book.
Since the literalist reading offers a disadvantage that doesn't seem to describe anybody, I will go with the charitable reading: Honesty is a disadvantage for people who believe that we have a moral obligation to act legally.
And yes, this means that an Honest person can sometimes break the law if they sincerely believe that law to be unjust. But they cannot break it merely to suit their own personal ends. Which I think is worth approximately -10 right there!