[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Honesty

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Andreas

The generalities of well known laws, yes. Anything less than that and you should probably have to take a mitigator for Honesty (unless your misstaken assumptions about what the law says is equally limiting).

Knowing all laws however isn't really reasonable to expect even from people who's job it is to know the law.

The problem is that it almost immediately begins to fall apart at the first contact with realism. Lots of callow characters (students, apprentices, recruits) would have an inclination to be Honest but can't really be expected to have the wherewithal to actually live up to the disadvantage. Does a highschool football player appreciate that hazing amounts to assault and forcible confinement? Does an apprentice plumber know which types of reused parts are against code? Does a buck private know how to even begin to refuse to cross a border in pursuit of a partisan?

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

The problem is that it almost immediately begins to fall apart at the first contact with realism. Lots of callow characters (students, apprentices, recruits) would have an inclination to be Honest but can't really be expected to have the wherewithal to actually live up to the disadvantage. Does a highschool football player appreciate that hazing amounts to assault and forcible confinement? Does an apprentice plumber know that reused parts are against code? Does a buck private know how to even begin to refuse to cross a border in pursuit of a partisan?

Those people just don't have standard Honesty. The inclination you mentioned just means that they have either a limited version of Honesty or some similiar quirk/feature.

GURPS disadvantages tend to represent rather extreme personality traits and that is more true for Honesty than for many others.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Icelander

People without Mental Disadvantages that apply can rationally weigh morality against legality, but Honesty, at its core, is the inability to distinguish between the two.

While I agree with the gist of your post, I quibble a bit on this point. I don't love the name of this disadvantage, but I've always thought that it felt very realistic to people I actually know. These are the sort of people who never go past the speed limit and ask me to slow down if I'm speeding; they always return library books on time; they drive 30-minutes back to a gas station to pay for the gum that the attendant forgot to ring up; they pay the maximum fare to the ticket agent if they lose their metro card, even if they could easily jump the turnstile, etc.

This doesn't mean that they don't have opinions about the laws or know when something's not in synch with their principles. They might rant about the speed limit being ridiculously low. Or, if it really bothers them, they may write to their representative to get it changed. Often they can be a real thorn in authority's side because instead of rolling their eyes at silly rules, they abide by them but then work hard to change them. In general, I have often heard the idea that you need to work to change the laws, but you can't just ignore the ones that you don't like.

Obviously, Honesty doesn't work if the premise of the campaign requires frequent lawbreaking, but I've seen plenty of games where the players are at least ostensibly on the side of the law. In a recent DFRPG game, for example, the Honest knight played himself as an ardent supporter of the King's Law. (This didn't stop other PCs from being dishonest, but they quickly learned that they needed to keep such shenanigans off the knight's radar.)

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

The problem is that it almost immediately begins to fall apart at the first contact with realism. Lots of callow characters (students, apprentices, recruits) would have an inclination to be Honest but can't really be expected to have the wherewithal to actually live up to the disadvantage. Does a highschool football player appreciate that hazing amounts to assault and forcible confinement?

No. Of course that's because it doesn't. The "hazing as ritual ordeal for membership" is not assault any more than participating in a boxing match is. It only becomes an Honesty issue if the subject decides quit and the team won't let them or the hazing rises to the level of reckless endangerment.

Apart from that, yes Honesty is limited by the knowledge of the character. You have to know that something is illegal before your Honesty will tell you not to do that. If the speed limit sign is obscured than you can keep going at the same speed until you are made aware that you need to slow down to comply with the law.

What more if you think that Honesty requires you to act in an insane manner, then you doing it wrong. Madmen do not get a +1 reaction modifier.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

The problem is that it almost immediately begins to fall apart at the first contact with realism. Lots of callow characters (students, apprentices, recruits) would have an inclination to be Honest but can't really be expected to have the wherewithal to actually live up to the disadvantage. Does a highschool football player appreciate that hazing amounts to assault and forcible confinement? Does an apprentice plumber know which types of reused parts are against code? Does a buck private know how to even begin to refuse to cross a border in pursuit of a partisan?

I am not sure crossing a border in pursuit of a partisan qualifies as an illegal order. At the least it is not the same as being commanded to commit an atrocity.

A buck private is on the other hand supposed to know not to kill an unarmed child or rape a woman. A High School football player does not need to know that some types of hazing are assault and forcible confinement as he does know they are sadistic bullying. Those two examples are more about CoH then Honesty though especially the later.

One example of Honesty though is a Gentleman who refuses to duel because it is against the law even though the law never really enforces it. In this case it would be a difficult disadvantage as his Reputation can go on a nosedive.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Does a highschool football player appreciate that hazing amounts to assault and forcible confinement? Does an apprentice plumber know which types of reused parts are against code? Does a buck private know how to even begin to refuse to cross a border in pursuit of a partisan?

Sure, I could see an honest character ignorantly breaking the law from time to time, but this could make for fun gaming. If it is brought to the character's attention that they broke the law, suddenly they will want to make amends, pay the fine, show up in court, etc., which could create great dramatic tension if it complicates the main plot.

This is assuming the player wants to play an Honest character in good faith. If they just want to figure out a clever way to get avoid being disadvantaged, I would make them pay it off.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

N

What more if you think that Honesty requires you to act in an insane manner, then you doing it wrong. Madmen do not get a +1 reaction modifier.

People actually playing Honesty according to RAW wouldn't either in the Real World. That of course takes us back to the "reasonable exceptions" clause that isn't there in Honesty or most other Disads. You're getting pts for the Disad because it compels you to do unreasonable things.

If you want a positive Repustation spend the CP to buy it outright and don't try and munchkin it out of a Disad.

[jason taylor]

Here's a scenario where Honesty and CoH might conflict dramatically:

Suppose there is a cop who sees a fellow cop engaged in corruption. Does he tell IA (and possibly testify in court) or does he be loyal to his "brother in blue".

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

People actually playing Honesty according to RAW wouldn't either in the Real World.

That you think that says to me that you are misinterpreting the RAW. For one thing you are assuming that the law itself does not allow for "reasonable exceptions".

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Those people just don't have standard Honesty. The inclination you mentioned just means that they have either a limited version of Honesty or some similiar quirk/feature.

No, I mean someone playing such a character might want to give the character Honesty but will immediately encounter the practical problems in play that I identified.

Originally Posted by Dalin

Sure, I could see an honest character ignorantly breaking the law from time to time, but this could make for fun gaming. If it is brought to the character's attention that they broke the law, suddenly they will want to make amends, pay the fine, show up in court, etc., which could create great dramatic tension if it complicates the main plot.

Personally, and in my observation of the people I play with, constantly running afoul of a disadvantage in that way would not be all that fun.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

That you think that says to me that you are misinterpreting the RAW. For one thing you are assuming that the law itself does not allow for "reasonable exceptions".

If people lived it as it is described, most people I know would think poorly of them.