Soldierly Honesty (and spies)

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

Doesn't that mean that any interpretation of Honesty that would make an Honest soldier unable to perform his duties is in error?

I wouldn't know. What I think it says is that Gene Seabolt, and his editor Steve Jackson, were aware the recruiting and training processes more commonly used in WWII would sift through the pool in the awareness that certain mental conditions would make a man unfit for duty, and discard those men - and that they did not believe Honesty (in the GURPS sense) would be one of them.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

No. It means that an "Honest" soldier from a gurps standpoint will not join the service if there is an "illegal" war, and if he joins only later to become part of an illegal war, should resign as soon as he is allowed by law, all the while refusing illegal orders.

If invading another country legally (whatever that means) an honest soldier should be conflicted frequently. If invading another country illegally, I would think the honest soldier to be conflicted constantly...

You are right to put ""illegal"" in quotes and to add "(whatever that means)". Because the idea of "illegal" war is a novelty in Earth history and might well never surface in many gameworlds.

Of course the matter of jurisdiction is easily worked out by having your honest soldiers on home ground. :)

It is also easily solved by Section III, Hague Convention IV 1907, if the soldier is on foreign ground.

I'm not sure there all to many real life examples of the kind of honesty GURPS talks about, but if you have someone who believes in the sovereignty of every nation to rule itself by its own laws, which is what honesty seems to include...

I don't see why you should assume that. The Disad description mentions the situation where there is "little or no law". Besides, it was not uncommon in history that foreigners who were subjects of a powerful country that the locals did not want to upset were granted what is today diplomatic immunity.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

If invading another country legally (whatever that means) an honest soldier should be conflicted frequently ...

Why, if the invasion is legal?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Let me see if I got this straight.
Honesty means obeying all laws home and abroad with the following exceptions. Conflicts between laws fall back to forcing you to obey those of your home state.
You may violate law if it conflicts with self-defense. And you must kill anyone your state tells you to with no exceptions.
Does this sound right to everyone?

So we can have an honest terrorist... extra creepy.

So what's wrong with creepiness? You seem to be under the impression that it is a philosophical issue not a gaming issue.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

So what's wrong with creepiness? You seem to be under the impression that it is a philosophical issue not a gaming issue.

Gaming philosophy if you will. Besides, I never said creepy was wrong. I just find the idea of an honest ie. law abiding as in following only the laws of one's own home nation, terrorist as intrinsically jarring.

But from a previous poster's argument, I've come to the conclusion that a soldier may be honest so long as he is engaging in a legal war.
So honest in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq, in my opinion of the gurps rules.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

...
So honest in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq, in my opinion of the gurps rules.

AND your opinion (not saying I disagree!) of the legality of those conflicts.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Gaming philosophy if you will. Besides, I never said creepy was wrong. I just find the idea of an honest ie. law abiding as in following only the laws of one's own home nation, terrorist as intrinsically jarring.

But from a previous poster's argument, I've come to the conclusion that a soldier may be honest so long as he is engaging in a legal war.
So honest in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq, in my opinion of the gurps rules.

As long as he _thinks_ he's engaging in a legal war.

[vicky_molokh]

Just realized that I recently saw a [fictional] example of being ready to serve, but not to invade another's territory: the Orca (well, whatever they call those futuristic helicopter-like vehicles) pilot in Avatar who says something like 'I did not sign up for this sort of thing' when they outright invade the Na'vi tribe's zone (as opposed to just protecting the out-of-the-way mining operation).

I think there might be more between history and fiction, and even more undocumented historical ones. Also, the Levy type of troops from mass combat seems to be easily capable of getting away with such behavior (well, to some degree, of course).

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Just realized that I recently saw a [fictional] example of being ready to serve, but not to invade another's territory: the Orca (well, whatever they call those futuristic helicopter-like vehicles) pilot in Avatar who says something like 'I did not sign up for this sort of thing' when they outright invade the Na'vi tribe's zone (as opposed to just protecting the out-of-the-way mining operation).

Was the mining operation really on human territory?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Was the mining operation really on human territory?

I think it was on unclaimed territory, which is the only territory that normally turns into somebody's territory without some sort of coercion.