Giving mental disadvantages as results of behaviour?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Sure, but doing so for your enemies even in situations where it would pose significant danger to yourself and when you don't have a duty to act is uncommon. Not non-existent, but rare.

For example consider the bystander effect. Under the right conditions a large majority of people choose to not help even when the one who needs help is not an enemy.

The bystander effect is the product of confusion about what can and should be done. If if someone takes charge and tells people what to do to help most people will comply and will in fact go to a great deal of trouble to help. Of course it is true that most people are not Charitable (at beyond a quirk level). But even a Charitable person may stand by when what needs to be done to help is not obvious to them.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

In the case of someone with Honesty or Law-abiding accidently speeding and noticing it (although really who games at this level of detail?) they can just slow down without having to make a roll to "turn themselves in" because Honesty isn't a complete lack of understanding of how the world actually works (barring other disadvantages like Clueless) and they know that nobody actually cares (and that they would only be wasting law enforcement time to even report "I noticed I was slightly above the speed limit, and then immediately slowed down").

I was not just referring to accidental violations (though someone with Honesty should probably carefully try to avoid those as well). Most people occasionally decide to exceed the speed limit even in situations where keeping the speed limit wouldn't be dangerous. Even for those who always try to stay within the speed limit when reasonably possible, it is not at all uncommon to consider some other law unimportant enough to be broken.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

That link isn't what you think it is.

The specific conditions for the bystander effect are when people are in a large crowd and no one has a clearly defined responsibility relative to the event. Often there is a lot of ambiguity about what the event even is or if it is occurring. Yes people often don't call the police when they hear a scream for help, but they also don't call the police everytime they hear a kid screaming for no real reason. Kids screaming for fun(?) is a way more common occurrence than genuine screams for help (a fact that I have always been unsettled by).

People do tend to react when it is clear to them that they are responsible; in situations where they are reasonably certain they clearly witnessed something, and there isn't anybody else possibly more qualified available.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have fixed the link.

Uncertainty about what is happening can certainly contribute, but the effect persists to a large extent even when it is clear that someone needs help. It is far easier to justify not acting when it seems that everyone around you are doing the same thing. It is true that many tend to act when they have a perceived responsibility (such as being the one who is clearly most able to help) to do so, but Charitable does not require that you have such a responsibility.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andreas

I was not just referring to accidental violations (though someone with Honesty should probably carefully try to avoid those as well). Most people occasionally decide to exceed the speed limit even in situations where keeping the speed limit wouldn't be dangerous. Even for those who always try to stay within the speed limit when reasonably possible, it is not at all uncommon to consider some other law unimportant enough to be broken.

I can't think of any laws that I consider unimportant enough to knowingly break. There are laws that I might consider breaking because of an ethical consideration, but that's a reasonable case of conflicting quirks.

Uncertainty about what is happening can certainly contribute, but the effect persists to a large extent even when it is clear that someone needs help.

I don't think that the studies at all support this. Usually if you make the subject aware that they personally are in a position to help, most people do.

It is far easier to justify not acting when it seems that everyone around you are doing the same thing.

Yes, but that's because people have confusion about what their role is, not because they don't wish to help. Somebody with Charitable or Responsive could also be in a situation where they fail to help because they aren't certain they are able to.

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I can't think of any laws that I consider unimportant enough to knowingly break.

That may be the case, but with how common digital piracy has become you may be the exception rather than the rule.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The bystander effect is the product of confusion about what can and should be done. If if someone takes charge and tells people what to do to help most people will comply and will in fact go to a great deal of trouble to help. Of course it is true that most people are not Charitable (at beyond a quirk level). But even a Charitable person may stand by when what needs to be done to help is not obvious to them.

That is part, but not all of it. It is also much easier to justify not helping when there is a huge crowd who aren't doing anything either. Following the behavior of the crowd tends to come rather naturally. Also under such conditions it is unlikely that you will later be personally condemned for failing to act. Both because being a part of a crowd give some anonymity and because almost all others who saw what you did, acted in the same way.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I can't think of any laws that I consider unimportant enough to knowingly break. There are laws that I might consider breaking because of an ethical consideration, but that's a reasonable case of conflicting quirks.

I don't think that the studies at all support this. Usually if you make the subject aware that they personally are in a position to help, most people do.
Yes, but that's because people have confusion about what their role is, not because they don't wish to help.

Well, it is of course impossible for me to know what, if any laws you would break, but I can give a couple of examples of violations many would consider acceptable. Certain trivial copyright violations that does not cause any significant harm, but for which the legal alternatives are very difficult (such as downloading a copy of an old publication which you can't find anyone who sells and for which it is not clear who owns the copyright) and a group of friends betting a small amount of money when playing poker with each other.

How are they made aware of that in the studies you are refering to? Anything that singles out a certain person is likely to reduce the sense of just following the crowd and the sense of anonymity.

It certainly seems reasonable that more people intervene under such circumstances though, but whether most people do so or not most likely depends heavily on how much effort is required and how dangerous it is. Whether they see the one needing help as an enemy should also be very important.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andreas

That is part, but not all of it. It is also much easier to justify not helping when there is a huge crowd who aren't doing anything either. Following the behavior of the crowd tends to come rather naturally. Also under such conditions it is unlikely that you will later be personally condemned for failing to act. Both because being a part of a crowd give some anonymity and because almost all others who saw what you did, acted in the same way.

Or people assume that there really must not be a problem if they don't see anybody reacting to it, or they assume that someone else is taking care of it, and so on. It definitely doesn't conclusively mean that people in crowds lack empathy, or anything of the sort.

Certain trivial copyright violations that does not cause any significant harm, but for which the legal alternatives are very difficult (such as downloading a copy of an old publication which you can't find anyone who sells and for which it is not clear who owns the copyright)

I can't recall doing this. I certainly wouldn't do so lightly.

and a group of friends betting a small amount of money when playing poker with each other.

I generally don't, but even if I did social gambling is legal in California.

Remember too that the Legalistic quirk isn't absolute. You may ignore the spirit of the law, you get a 12 or less suppression roll and it lacks Honesty's requirement to turn yourself in entirely.

Even full-on Honesty isn't absolute in that sense depending on your Self-Control roll.

How are they made aware of that in the studies you are refering to?

Assigning them an appropriate role in advance works. I believe even addressing them directly works.

Anything that singles out a certain person is likely to reduce the sense of just following the crowd and the sense of anonymity.

Well, yes that's why the bystander effect exists. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that the cause is primarily a lack of basic empathy rather than an information problem. If you give people the right information the effect significantly diminishes.

It certainly seems reasonable that more people intervene under such circumstances though, but whether most people do so or not most likely depends heavily on how much effort is required and how dangerous it is. Whether they see the one needing help as an enemy should also be very important.

Sure, most people aren't Albert Schweitzer. Most people probably don't even have the Responsive quirk (though I'd argue it's probably fairly common, probably at least as common as Insensitive). It doesn't follow that most people don't possess some level of basic empathy. People on average have been shown to react negatively to images of suffering, for example.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by talonthehand

That may be the case, but with how common digital piracy has become you may be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not arguing that Honesty or even Legalistic is widespread (though I think Legalistic might be reasonably common). I'm arguing that the intent of Honesty is not to make an unplayable disadvantage that requires the character attempt to turn themselves in for speeding or shut-down completely when they realize that the law requires two conflicting courses of action or something. IME, the intent is much more straightforward then a lot of people seem to characterize it.

Relevant to the OP, I think (again) that if a character is doing things that are horrific by a reasonable person standpoint appropriate to the campaign and setting, then you can have them roll Fright Checks when witnessing the consequences (just as if they saw someone else do it!). Moral wounds are a real-life phenomenon as a consequence of interpersonal violence. GURPS Tactical Shooting has rules for this, and GURPS Horror: The Madness Dossier suggests inflicting Stress on Sandmen for doing horrible but necessary things even if they don't normally require a Fright Check. Obviously only do this in campaigns where moral decay is thematically appropriate!

On the other hand, as Bill says, such behavior is often thematically inappropriate to begin with so the real solution is to talk it out and maybe boot the problem player if you can't come to an agreement.

[Kalzazz]

I try very hard to avoid speeding or anything similar due to potentially slightly higher fear of police than others. However, I have occasionally failed per checks to notice speed limits, memory checks to remember the limit after noticing it, or driving checks to keep car at desired velocity

I am afflicted by overwhelming compulsion I must always return shopping carts to cart corrals or store after use

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

I try very hard to avoid speeding or anything similar due to potentially slightly higher fear of police than others. However, I have occasionally failed per checks to notice speed limits, memory checks to remember the limit after noticing it, or driving checks to keep car at desired velocity

Yes, Legalistic (or even Honesty) doesn't give perfect awareness or prevent lapses due to inattention. In either case the response to getting a speeding ticket is simply to pay it (and probably to be embarrassed).

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Remember too that the Legalistic quirk isn't absolute. You may ignore the spirit of the law, you get a 12 or less suppression roll and it lacks Honesty's requirement to turn yourself in entirely.

Even full-on Honesty isn't absolute in that sense depending on your Self-Control roll.

Sure, it does not at all seem unlikely that some quirk level version of Honesty is somewhat common.

Well, the Honesty advantage says that you get to make a self-control roll if there is a “need” to break the law. It is not at all clear that you get to make such a roll for a trivial reason such as poker with your friends.

Assigning them an appropriate role in advance works. I believe even addressing them directly works. Well, yes that's why the bystander effect exists. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that the cause is primarily a lack of basic empathy rather than an information problem. If you give people the right information the effect significantly diminishes.

Sure, most people aren't Albert Schweitzer. Most people probably don't even have the Responsive quirk (though I'd argue it's probably fairly common, probably at least as common as Insensitive). It doesn't follow that most people don't possess some level of basic empathy. People on average have been shown to react negatively to images of suffering, for example.

I'm not trying to say that the bystander effect won't be reduced when the observers have good information about what is happening or that people in crowds lack empathy. People in the crowd who don't help might very well feel bad about it. However empathy is not the only reason people help each other (not wanting to get a bad reputation another reason) and following the crowd is a behavior that often comes naturally. For some people the thought of standing out by making a different decision than the crowd around you like that can even seem intimidating.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'm arguing that the intent of Honesty is not to make an unplayable disadvantage that requires the character attempt to turn themselves in for speeding or shut-down completely when they realize that the law requires two conflicting courses of action or something. IME, the intent is much more straightforward then a lot of people seem to characterize it.

Well, while I agree that it would be overly pedantic to require that you turn yourself in for a trivial crime that most likely won't result in a conviction even with your confession, what is left is still enough to make the disadvantage pretty much unplayable for many kinds of games. It would for example be very hard to deal with the Honesty disadvantage in many kinds of Monster Hunter games. Honesty is not alone in that regard, plenty of other disadvantages are unsuitable for many kinds of games. Pacifism: Total Nonviolence for example.