My Honest Opinion

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

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.

This is particularly true for disadvantages like Honesty where the narrow literal interpretation is internally contradictory.

Seriously the debates over it get pretty ridiculous, it's a relatively modest disadvantage (only -10 points after all) intended as a virtue for characters who obey a superhero code. If you are playing it as something totally crippling that forces a character to do evil things, it's completely obvious you've missed the point.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

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,

There is a lot of overlap between the way some GMs think you should punish players who want to play Honest characters and the way they want to abuse players of Paladins. It probably says more about them personally than about the actual intent of those rules.

If the rules have a trait like this and nothing else that explicitly involves playing a such a common literary trope as following a code of Truth and Justice, that's what the authors intended it to be for.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by malloyd

This is particularly true for disadvantages like Honesty where the narrow literal interpretation is internally contradictory.

Seriously the debates over it get pretty ridiculous, it's a relatively modest disadvantage (only -10 points after all) intended as a virtue for characters who obey a superhero code. If you are playing it as something totally crippling that forces a character to do evil things, it's completely obvious you've missed the point.

It's a 20 point Disadvantage that comes bundled with a 10 point Reputation. As such, the Disadvantage part is more severe than Pacifism: Cannot Kill or Vow (Never Use Weapons).

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by malloyd

There is a lot of overlap between the way some GMs think you should punish players who want to play Honest characters and the way they want to abuse players of Paladins. It probably says more about them personally than about the actual intent of those rules.

If the rules have a trait like this and nothing else that explicitly involves playing a such a common literary trope as following a code of Truth and Justice, that's what the authors intended it to be for.

We have other traits that are intended for honest, morally upright characters.* Those include Code of Honour, Pacifism: Cannot Harm Innocents, Sense of Duty or Vow.

GURPS Honesty is pretty unsuitable for the protagonist of any kind of adventure, as it makes is difficult to impossible for the characters to take matters into their own hands, as opposed to leaving them to properly constituted authorities.

And as a compulsion to follow local laws, which explicitly doesn't have anything to do with telling the truth**, it's not exactly a good fit for a code of Truth and Justice.

*Depending on the specifics, of course, those can also suit characters dedicated to principles that most people would find repugnant.
**That's Truthfulness, as the Disadvantage description notes.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It's a 20 point Disadvantage that comes bundled with a 10 point Reputation. As such, the Disadvantage part is more severe than Pacifism: Cannot Kill or Vow (Never Use Weapons).

In that case though, it's clearly inappropriate to use it in cases where you *wouldn't get the Reputation bonus*. Which you wouldn't for most of the pathological forms. I wouldn't object to including Geas (obey the law) as a -20 point disadvantage, but Honesty isn't it.

Edit: It's also routinely used in templates that are clearly intended to be active good guys - it's mandatory for Lensmen, called out as a "chivalrous" trait for the DF Knight and so on. It's pretty clear that GURPS doesn't intend it to be unsuitable to heroic protagonists.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Icelander

GURPS Honesty is pretty unsuitable for the protagonist of any kind of adventure, as it makes is difficult to impossible for the characters to take matters into their own hands, as opposed to leaving them to properly constituted authorities.

Unless they are the properly constituted authorities themselves, or the matter is out-of-context for the properly constituted authorities.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

Unless they are the properly constituted authorities themselves, or the matter is out-of-context for the properly constituted authorities.

Most adventures, as oppposed to slice of life stories, have elements that require authorities to be notified. And even of the PCs are cops or other authorities, following the law in such professions usually means that there is little narrative structure, as the PCs would do their jobs and turn the rest of the adventure over to other officers and specialists.

[Kalzazz]

One adventure my character being Honest actually got a higher reward

There was a seemingly odd accidental death, that a quest giver asked us to check out. We looked and started to suspect foul play

So my Honest character notified the town guard and requested permission to follow up. The guard said 'No, you can't. And there is NO crime here!'

So my character reported this to the local Duke and explained that it seemed odd, and the Duke said go ahead and see what you can turn up

When we finally figured it out, we got a reward from the Duke to

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Which you wouldn't for most of the pathological forms.

Most GURPS disadvantages are "pathological." They're larger than life exaggerations to make them more gameable. Bad Temper guys are, like, always angry (or on the verge of it). Bloodlust guys always advocate for murdering people. Lecherous characters always hit on people. That's the default stance. Of course, it only comes up when it matters (the Lecherous guy isn't going out of his way to find girls to hit on, though it's fair and good RP if he does, provided he isn't bring the game to a stop), and you can make self-control rolls.

But, yeah, Honesty is pretty extreme. All disads are. It's right there in the text: you always follow the laws. You don't jaywalk, you file your taxes on time, you sign up for the draft. If the law of the land says you have to pay 99% income taxes, then you do. If the law of the land says you must turn in any escaped slaves, you'll do that too. Calling it a "worship of authority figures" is a bit of a poetic flourish, but it's one that derives from the implications of the disadvantage. If the "law of the land" says you must do something, then you must do it. That's what the advantage says. The only exception is if there isn't (or almost isn't) a law of the land, in which case you revert to your homeland's laws.

Nowhere does it say "You must follow the law, but only totally reasonable laws that you agree to." That's not really much of a disadvantage!

[evileeyore]

So what would honesty cost if stripped of it's Gullibility and Reputation? -15?