[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Honesty

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

One weird thing about this disadvantage is how it gives the same amount of points regardless of how restricting the laws are you have to follow.

In some settings, there are almost no laws, while in other settings the law might be so restrictive that a character with the disadvantage is prevented from doing almost anything.

A Soviet farmer can't do very much at all if they have this disadvantage. Meanwhile, there's very little a Roman emperor with the disadvantage would be prevented from doing.

If it's a setting with only a few fairly unrestrictive laws, or if it's a totalitarian dystopia, you get back the same ten points for always following the law.

Not really. After all the increasingly restrictive laws are balanced by the value of Honest in keeping the totalitarian state from from sending you to the room with the rats.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Not really. After all the increasingly restrictive laws are balanced by the value of Honest in keeping the totalitarian state from from sending you to the room with the rats.

But the characters without Honesty can choose to not follow the laws when it benefits them. A Chinese peasant during the famine can try to scrounge up some food somewhere. They can trade with the guards, steal food, grow their own crops in secret, etc. But an Honest character has to suffer what the law demands. They can't flee to the cities where there's work. If there's a war, they might find themselves charging a machine gun nest, whereas a character without Honesty could take all sorts of illegal actions to avoid that end.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

One weird thing about this disadvantage is how it gives the same amount of points regardless of how restricting the laws are you have to follow.

I don't know that that's all that unfair though. I suppose in principle adventuring could be possible in an environment with very restrictive laws which are very poorly enforced, but for the most part if you can make a career out of being an adventurer they can't be that bad. And honestly I think about 90% of the obstacles to any adventuring career from abiding by the law, a code of honor or the like are the really basic laws pretty much all of will have - don't murder, assault, torture or imprison people, steal or vandalize stuff, trespass, or offer false testimony closes down a *lot* of adventurer problem solving techniques. The details of a convoluted tax code or health insurance regulations or automobile registration, not so much. An adversarial GM can harass players with that sort of thing, but it's not like any of their plans are likely to hinge on whether or not they can park in a fire lane in the same way they might on whether or not they can kill somebody or enter a building without permission.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Brandy

I think that's giving too much weight to the first line. Just look at the other disads on the same page. The format is the same: the first sentence of each entry is a short, declarative sentence with no game mechanics. The mechanics are what follows after this. The word "must" appears appears later with the same emphasis, but its describing what happens with a failed SC roll and makes more sense in that context.

To my thinking, the second appearance of "must", in addressing a failed attempt to resist the disad, is consistent with and re-emphasizes the first one, and its imperative nature.

It seems to me that the first sentence is just meant to be a high-level description of what the disadvantage *is*, not describe any particular rule mechanics or how the disad should be gamed.

I've gotta say, the difference between a mechanic and clear declaration of what a character 'must' do is a nicety I am not really able to distinguish.

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

If “Honesty” is actually meant to make the character into a deranged frothing obsessive, then (a) it’s grossly undervalued (which is possible — I’m not 100% certain that some other disas values are quite right)

I find there are several disadvantages that unless you read them down they impose lots of trouble on characters or a whole lot of problems for implementation in a campaign.

(b) there is no mechanic to represent some people who I know personally, who really do have a bit of a hang-up about obeying the law, and would get quite jittery about breaking it in significant ways, but who don’t act like robotic loons. And who’d probably suffer around -10 points’ worth of trouble from it if they took up lives as adventurers.

As I do know such people, but have never met any robotic loons, I’d much rather use the disad term to represent their personality type.

I know people like that too. I would not consider that to be in line with a 'self-imposed' mental disadvantage as Honesty is called on p. B121, and for that reason as well as others, I don't think Honesty as written is a good way to characterize them.


I would like to mention to both of you that I am not trying to insist that people SHOULD play Honesty in a way that causes problems, I just think it's written in a way that leads there.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

So the question is "Why do you insist on an interpretation that makes the disadvantage one that isn't useful?"

I think a leass loaded question may be, "Why do you interpret the disadvantage the way you do?" And my answer is, because that's what the text says to me.

No. After all, travelling too slow is almost as travelling to fast and she is after all travelling at the correct speed for a totally unposted road outside of cities unless road conditions made that unsafe.

Minimum speed limits are vanishingly rare compared to maximum speed limits. If, as was posited, the character is basing her actions on what seems likely, it is far more likely that she will transgress by speeding than by going too slow. Accordingly, to be 'probably' secure in not breaking the law it is much better to go slower.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Not really. After all the increasingly restrictive laws are balanced by the value of Honest in keeping the totalitarian state from from sending you to the room with the rats.

That doesn't really track. You don't have to be Honest to obey the law out of self-interest.

Originally Posted by malloyd

I don't think they really do, because the disadvantage isn't evaluated only at this very instant. Though this might be a side effect of my thinking the disadvantage is an internal moral imperative rather than a compulsion to follow the rules.

I think that gets back to the inconsistencies within the description. On the one hand Honesty is listed among self-imposed mental disadvantages, but it also contains elements that are clearly not that.

Originally Posted by malloyd

And honestly I think about 90% of the obstacles to any adventuring career from abiding by the law, a code of honor or the like are the really basic laws pretty much all of will have - don't murder, assault, torture or imprison people, steal or vandalize stuff, trespass, or offer false testimony closes down a *lot* of adventurer problem solving techniques.

A Code of Honour or Pacifism or other similar types are more specific rather than the broad inclusiveness of Honesty.

The details of a convoluted tax code or health insurance regulations or automobile registration, not so much. An adversarial GM can harass players with that sort of thing, but it's not like any of their plans are likely to hinge on whether or not they can park in a fire lane in the same way they might on whether or not they can kill somebody or enter a building without permission.

That makes the inclusivity of Honesty worse, not better. The Honest character is compelled to think about an arguably trivial matter like fire lanes. It's not adversarial for a GM to expect a character to live up to the disad as written, and it's supposed to be good role playing for the player to be alert to those issues without the GM bringing them up.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

One weird thing about this disadvantage is how it gives the same amount of points regardless of how restricting the laws are you have to follow.

To my mind, this is a symptom of being a generic system, and it’s true for many other disadvantages (and advantages, for that matter). I can think of many examples that differ wildly in risk depending on the setting and campaign assumptions. Cowardice, for example, could be a near death sentence in some games but barely more than a quirk in others.

The GM, when deciding what elements to include on the char-gen menu, can ban it or change the price. Similarly, I’ve seen players renegotiate (or replace) disads in play if they feel out of synch with others. As a GM, I’m certainly open to that conversation.

The base cost for honesty seems appropriate for how I’ve seen it used in a wide variety of setting (DF, regular fantasy, Arabian Nights, various sci-fi, horror, 1920s mystery, etc.) For unusual circumstances, I would raise or lower the price.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Using this as a segue I want to note that Honesty is 10 pts for anybody anywhen yet it binds Bili the Axe much more lightly than it does anyone in our current society. 10 pts might be a more fair value for Bili.

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

If it's a setting with only a few fairly unrestrictive laws, or if it's a totalitarian dystopia, you get back the same ten points for always following the law.

To expand on what others have said, not all traits are appropriate for all PCs in all settings. Honesty would have no meaning in a setting with no laws, just as Illiteracy in a setting without writing. Likewise Honesty for a career criminal would as inappropriate as Cannot Kill for an assassin.

If needed, the GM might suggest that a "good" PC in such a setting or career
take strong Vows or Codes of Honour to represent their internal moral compass.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

think a leass loaded question may be, "Why do you interpret the disadvantage the way you do?" And my answer is, because that's what the text says to me.

It might be less loaded but it's wrong. The question I really am asking is "Why are you interpreting the text in a way that will cripple the disad's game functionality?". Furthermore it's an interpretation that makes it internally inconsistent. The intent of Honest is to make a character who is a straight arrow, a reliable guy who doesn't steal, murder, vandalize, rape or cheat on his taxes and regards his word as his bond. Someone you can trust, which is why he quickly acquires a +1 reaction bonus when word gets around about how trustworthy he is.

Therefore if you are playing the character as a Lawful Stupid Paladin who annoys everyone he deals with...you're doing it wrong and should stop and ask yourself questions like "What did the writer mean by "crime"?".

[dcarson]

I ran a pulp campaign with a Honest PC in it.

Arriving at the rural home of the friend of one of the PCs that called them for help and hearing his last words before he died from the wound from the bad guys. Calling the police and then leaving to catch the bad guys before they get to where the device is stored. No roll needed, not sure if you are required to stay for the police and it is an emergency.

The high speed drive to beat them to the device. He wasn't driving so he just complained a bit.

Breaking into the warehouse in the middle of the night. Needed a roll but they were just recovering property they had been asked by the owner to get and keeping it from bad guys.

The gun battle in the warehouse when the bad guys caught up. Self defense.

The fire that started, totally an accident.

Heading out the back with the device to get it away. That's when it mattered. The rest of the party gets to the car and then notice he isn't with them. One of them goes and looks around the corner. There he is talking to the police that arrived with the fire department. From the gestures towards the warehouse and the corner they are parked around he is explaining what happened. So they drive over and pretend that they had always planned on doing that. Known mobsters, a Wealthy PC with a bit of a Reputation, good lawyers and pulp era law and they were out by morning. After that they were more careful either in what they did or what they let him know about.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It might be less loaded but it's wrong. The question I really am asking is "Why are you interpreting the text in a way that will cripple the disad's game functionality?".

Already answered -- because that's how it's written.

Furthermore it's an interpretation that makes it internally inconsistent.

It's internally inconsistent without interpretation.

The intent of Honest is to make a character who is a straight arrow, a reliable guy who doesn't steal, murder, vandalize, rape or cheat on his taxes and regards his word as his bond. Someone you can trust, which is why he quickly acquires a +1 reaction bonus when word gets around about how trustworthy he is.

If that is the intent, it should be more clear. (BTW, wrapping in the reaction bonus seems to violate the 4e design principle of 'you get what you pay for'. It's also extremely vague about when it kicks in, and is useless to an itinerant type of character.) (Also BTW, speaking of internal consistency, an Honest character's word is only his bond when breaking it "would involve breaking the law". Otherwise, go for it.)

Therefore if you are playing the character as a Lawful Stupid...

"You also assume that others are honest unless you know otherwise"

"Make a self control roll when faced with the "need" to break unreasonable laws; if you fail you must obey the law"

... Paladin who annoys everyone he deals with...

"You must obey the law and do your best to get others to do so as well." (Bolding and underline added.)

... you're doing it wrong and should stop and ask yourself questions like "What did the writer mean by "crime"?".

The only place the writers used the word "crime" is in the bit about not escaping when you are charged with one.