My Honest Opinion

[Celjabba]

Reading the RAW, the text does includes several "backdoors" to keep the disadvantage in check.

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.
Otherwise, a character with pyromania and low to average will is dead, homeless or in jail, setting fire to whatever can burn, including his own clothes if nothing else is near, as soon as he got matches or (god forbid) a lighter.

An Gurps-honest character usually follow the law, even when it inconvenience him, and accept to pay the price should he break it. He will also try to convince other to do so, by example and proportionate influencing.
Unless he live under mandatory delation law, he doesn't automatically have to report law-breaker (but see above about trying to convince them).

He is not, barring other disadvantages, a mindless law abiding automaton.

He also assume honesty from other, unless proven otherwise. Which to me is one of the worse part of the disadvantage ! He can be easily manipulated or blindsided.

[The Colonel]

Do we assume that Honest also includes an inherent belief in the legitimacy of the state? That could bear on the "will/may call police to report crime" issue - an honest person with no loyalty to government might be more prone to rely on peer pressure and/or address the matter within their community, whilst a state endorsing character might be more likely to hand matters to the proper authorities.

[Boomerang]

In my opinion the default for Honesty is that the laws of the land are reasonable. If the laws of the land are unreasonable the disadvantage should be worth -15 or -20 points.

[Gnome]

The principle of charity should apply here.
Does the disadvantage represent a pathology--compulsive law-following, even against one's own better judgment, which is extremely rare to nonexistent, and which I've never seen in fiction? Or does it represent a moral stance--the belief that one should follow the law of the land because it's the right thing to do, which is common in real life and perhaps even more common in fiction?
The more charitable reading of the text is the latter, even if the former might be a correct "literalist" reading of what's in the book.
Since the literalist reading offers a disadvantage that doesn't seem to describe anybody, I will go with the charitable reading: Honesty is a disadvantage for people who believe that we have a moral obligation to act legally.
And yes, this means that an Honest person can sometimes break the law if they sincerely believe that law to be unjust. But they cannot break it merely to suit their own personal ends. Which I think is worth approximately -10 right there!

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Do we assume that Honest also includes an inherent belief in the legitimacy of the state? That could bear on the "will/may call police to report crime" issue - an honest person with no loyalty to government might be more prone to rely on peer pressure and/or address the matter within their community, whilst a state endorsing character might be more likely to hand matters to the proper authorities.

In some times in Anglo-American history the legitimacy of the central government was in doubt but the local law tended to function as normal with exceptions for political crimes where one faction had a secure grip on an area. That is where the rhyme "Vicar of Bray" comes from but on the other hand a Vicar has more interest in what goes on in his neighborhood then what ruler is in charge.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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?