[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Honesty

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Brandy

There's an awful lot of rumination about what Honesty would mean in the "real world" where the actual laws are a mess of tangled jurisdictions, vaguely-worded statutes, and outright contradictions.

I've never been tempted to try and represent the state of "the law" in any game world that I've created in this way. I cannot imagine what the point of that would be. In such a game world...I don't know, something like Paranoia, perhaps?...Honesty would indeed be debilitating. If that's how any of you run your games, then yeah, Honesty would be a terrible deal for only -10 points. I wouldn't approach it that way, but I get that my approach is different on a lot of things.

Anyone who might find themselves with the opportunity to play a character in a game that I am running should feel free to take Honesty. I'm pretty sure we can share an interpretation that seems both fun and fair.

The laws are like that in every setting that isn't magical utopian fantasy, because contradictions, imperfections and tangles are inherent in a man-made structure of rules coming into contact with reality, not to mention that lawmakers are by their (human) nature flawed.

And I can't imagine playing a game in a magical utopian fantasy, for a lot of reasons, but one of which is that I lack the ability to imagine, describe or explain a legal system without imperfections, unfairness, contractions or ambiguity.

A pretty fundamental aspect of fiction that I enjoy is that characters have to make meaningful moral decisions, revealing in the process their true values. For that to happen, the setting can't handwave away the moral complexities of the real world and posit an utopia where the right thing to do is always obvious, unambigious and matches the course of action which external social pressures would mandate.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The laws are like that in every setting that isn't magical utopian fantasy, because contradictions, imperfections and tangles are inherent in a man-made structure of rules coming into contact with reality, not to mention that lawmakers are by their (human) nature flawed.

When laws are contradictory then it is incumbent on the Honest person to decide which law has the greater authority. T

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

When laws are contradictory then it is incumbent on the Honest person to decide which law has the greater authority. T

Sure.

Which effectively means that all of them will be lawyers, at least self-taught, as their daily lives are spent doing what lawyers do, i.e. interpreting the law.

And, of course, they'll learn what every lawyer knows, which is that 'obeying the law' is impossible, as no one person can even remotely approach a full knowledge of total sum of legislation that has been passed in any modern Western country, let alone attempt to follow all of it.

Those rational will then buy off Honesty and exchange it with a Code of Honour, Sense of Duty and equivalent Disadvantages that express their personal values and then follow a consistent ethical system of some sort, taking care to avoid breaking any of those laws which are likely to cause harm or bring negative attention on them.

Those more concerned with the source of the rules, i.e. that they must originate from the state, than their content or, indeed, consistency, will continue to have Honesty. Their predictability and adherence to the norms paid lip service to by the majority of society gives them a +1 Reaction bonus, but they are unsuitable adventurers for many games (indeed, every one I've every GMed or played in).

[Anthony]

The first problem with honesty is that it most certainly doesn't mean what the word 'honest' means in normal use, which doesn't have a lot to do with law. An actual 'honesty disadvantage would either be Truthfulness or something like:
Code of Honor: Fair Dealing
In any negotiation, you will attempt to arrange for a fair deal, and you will keep a deal that is fairly reached. In commercial transactions, including employment, you will not ask more than fair value or offer less, and you will expect the same out of anyone negotiating on your behalf..

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The laws are like that in every setting that isn't magical utopian fantasy...

What I said was "I've never been tempted to try and represent the state of "the law" in any game world that I've created in this way." I'm not going to spend my world-design energy figuring out a host of vague, messy, and contradictory things that are present in the law. Whether they are there or not isn't material to me, because that's not what my games have been about. I think about how the law will matter to adventurers, sure, but I'm not going to give any consideration to turn signals and building codes (just to name two examples that have cropped up in this thread).

A pretty fundamental aspect of fiction that I enjoy is that characters have to make meaningful moral decisions, revealing in the process their true values. For that to happen, the setting can't handwave away the moral complexities of the real world and posit an utopia where the right thing to do is always obvious, unambigious and matches the course of action which external social pressures would mandate.

If I believed that I had to choose between "game worlds that take the time to represent the state of the law in a detailed and complex way, with all of the inherent ambiguities in such a system" and "game worlds where characters make meaningful moral decisions", I'm pretty sure I'd take up a different hobby. However, it's obvious that that isn't true.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I've seen characters in play who SHOULD have had honesty on their sheet but didn't. The most prominent was in a space-sheriffs type game where the PC's could have gotten away with lots of "minor" illegal stuff in the service of catching dangerous criminals. You know, the sort of thing portrayed in every crime TV show ever. But one Player decided his character was a stickler for the rules, and he kept the rest of the group (mostly) on the strait and narrow.

For those I use CoH (Must Uphold the Law) [-5], simply not have to deal with the Delusion (Most Others have the same CoH) [-5*] when playing LEO.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Brandy

If I believed that I had to choose between "game worlds that take the time to represent the state of the law in a detailed and complex way, with all of the inherent ambiguities in such a system" and "game worlds where characters make meaningful moral decisions", I'm pretty sure I'd take up a different hobby. However, it's obvious that that isn't true.

I admit that lately I've strongly preferred to use a setting that is basically our real world except for recent, secret changes that have not yet altered the world enough so that I cannot simply look up the detail that I want on the Internet.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The first problem with honesty is that it most certainly doesn't mean what the word 'honest' means in normal use, which doesn't have a lot to do with law. An actual 'honesty disadvantage would either be Truthfulness or something like:
Code of Honor: Fair Dealing
In any negotiation, you will attempt to arrange for a fair deal, and you will keep a deal that is fairly reached. In commercial transactions, including employment, you will not ask more than fair value or offer less, and you will expect the same out of anyone negotiating on your behalf..

Interesting. I'm not sure I completely agree with that being the default definition of honest as it's commonly used.
People are often called honest even when they tell their kids that Santa exists or some other lie told to dying relatives to make them feel better.
Your second definition just moves the problem to whatever fair means which I'm sure varies a lot from person to person.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by ericthered

And that you have come to this conclusion is a strong sign that you've read the disadvantage wrong. You're extrapolating ridiculous results from a fairly basic trait.



Now, they'll certainly HIRE someone to do home repairs if they suspect a building code is involved. But nothing prevents them from being drywaller that follows the code to the best of their ability.

My conclusion follows rather straightforwardly from the wording of the disadvantage (except that I didn't mention the possibility of making your self control roll). The disadvantage might be harsh for its point value, but what is discussed here is what the disadvantage as written in the rules does, not what it would do if rewritten so that it has a fair point value.

The law can obviously prevent an Honest character from being a drywaller if the legal requirements for that are onerous.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Your second definition just moves the problem to whatever fair means which I'm sure varies a lot from person to person.

Well, it's a term GURPS already uses in the rules for commercial transactions.