Code of Honor (Honesty), point value?

[Ashtagon]

I'm not sure this makes much sense as a Code of Honour, for two reasons.

1) All the existing Codes have an "in-group" to which they would naturally apply, some kind of distinct subculture relative to the wider population. This CoH/Honesty lacks that feature.

2) More importantly, the point cost depends on how much trouble the code would get you into through maintaining the code. Since it's basically "follow the law, or be good where the law is evil", it's basically no trouble at all unless your campaign is set in an inherently evil regime. In contrast, all five of the CoH in Basic contain elements of risk (either physical risk or loss of standing among the CoH's in-group) for the character that are unrelated to the law.

I don't think it's much more than a Quirk. It's basically free points in any campaign that isn't explicitly an "evil PCs" campaign. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but for that to happen, you'd need to show me how it could cause disadvantage to a character in a campaign set in a country that has a "good" government.

[Sorenant]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

I'm not sure this makes much sense as a Code of Honour, for two reasons.

1) All the existing Codes have an "in-group" to which they would naturally apply, some kind of distinct subculture relative to the wider population. This CoH/Honesty lacks that feature.

2) More importantly, the point cost depends on how much trouble the code would get you into through maintaining the code. Since it's basically "follow the law, or be good where the law is evil", it's basically no trouble at all unless your campaign is set in an inherently evil regime. In contrast, all five of the CoH in Basic contain elements of risk (either physical risk or loss of standing among the CoH's in-group) for the character that are unrelated to the law.

I don't think it's much more than a Quirk. It's basically free points in any campaign that isn't explicitly an "evil PCs" campaign. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but for that to happen, you'd need to show me how it could cause disadvantage to a character in a campaign set in a country that has a "good" government.

Good point. I wholeheartedly agree this disadvantage is not as crippling as the ones it draws from but I disagree its merely a perk.
In a fantasy setting, you could for example have to investigate demonic influence in a court or some village, an amoral character would have the options to tresspass rooms and houses to look for clues, interrogate suspects without proof and maybe even use invasive spells like mind reading, wizard eye and echoes/images of past. An honest man would limit himself to more lawful methods like doing legwork to gather information and relying on non-invasive spells like Seek Magic to help him. It might be a stretch but I also could see a character in a Ancient Rome refusing to own a slave and being seem as a eccentric for some reaction penalty.
Similar limitations would apply on modern days setting but you could also have other situations. For example in a Zombies Day One campaign the character would not go loot walmart for food, a wounded spy wouldn't break into someone's house for respite and the superhero would restraint himself when fighting in a marketplace in fear of causing harm to the stands.
For futuristic games, the character will use underpowered ballistic weapons instead of powerful lasers to avoid collateral damage (not unlike modern special forces using SMG instead of rifles), he might also take the unconscious jovian neo-luddite terrorist to hospital from where he might escape and come back for revenge.

Again, I agree these are occasional cases that doesn't come plague the player as often the full blown disadvantages would but they do exist and probably should warrant at least -5 points, especially if you consider it also imply containing other Code of Honors like Stays Bought, an honest person would do his best to follow through the job he was paid for and would never betray the employer unless he betrays you first (eg the pack you were hired to deliver was a bomb).

[Icelander]

I disagree that Disadvantages aren't worth points just because they fit the desired campaign or characters. Sense of Duty (Adventuring Group) may be an assumed norm in many campaigns, but it still limits the choices of players.

This Disadvantage provides a wealth of potential adventure hooks by defining motivation for a character. As such, it's easily worth -5 and I wouldn't balk at -10, if the character expected to interpret it strictly and frequently risk his life, reputation and everything else to keep it.

[Sorenant]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I disagree that Disadvantages aren't worth points just because they fit the desired campaign or characters. Sense of Duty (Adventuring Group) may be an assumed norm in many campaigns, but it still limits the choices of players.

This Disadvantage provides a wealth of potential adventure hooks by defining motivation for a character. As such, it's easily worth -5 and I wouldn't balk at -10, if the character expected to interpret it strictly and frequently risk his life, reputation and everything else to keep it.

Instead of making it worth -5 or -10 depending on the effect, I'd settle with -5 for this one and make a separate CoH named "Heroic" or something worth -10 that would be a genre agnostic version of CoH (Xia) from MA.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

2) More importantly, the point cost depends on how much trouble the code would get you into through maintaining the code. Since it's basically "follow the law, or be good where the law is evil", it's basically no trouble at all unless your campaign is set in an inherently evil regime. In contrast, all five of the CoH in Basic contain elements of risk (either physical risk or loss of standing among the CoH's in-group) for the character that are unrelated to the law.

No, a law can be of considerable inconvenience without being evil. It is always against the law to cheat on one's taxes and taxes are sometimes extremely grievous. But that law is not a command to participate in genocide.

A CoH that includes respecting the law but not blindly is not in fact just shorthand for "don't be evil." Giving reasonable respect to public institutions(Constitution, laws, offices) is a reasonable part of a CoH. It would probably for instance include refraining from venial nepotism, patronage and favor trading even though "everyone does it."

One example of that was a story I heard of a country judge who found his daughter arraigned for a traffic violation(the story does not explain why he did not recuse himself). He promptly found his daughter guilty. And then turned around and paid the ticket himself.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

I'm not sure this makes much sense as a Code of Honour, for two reasons.

1) All the existing Codes have an "in-group" to which they would naturally apply, some kind of distinct subculture relative to the wider population. This CoH/Honesty lacks that feature.

2) More importantly, the point cost depends on how much trouble the code would get you into through maintaining the code. Since it's basically "follow the law, or be good where the law is evil", it's basically no trouble at all unless your campaign is set in an inherently evil regime. In contrast, all five of the CoH in Basic contain elements of risk (either physical risk or loss of standing among the CoH's in-group) for the character that are unrelated to the law.

I don't think it's much more than a Quirk. It's basically free points in any campaign that isn't explicitly an "evil PCs" campaign. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but for that to happen, you'd need to show me how it could cause disadvantage to a character in a campaign set in a country that has a "good" government.

Remember in the Pilot when Simon was told, "You'd do that, you're gonna kill a lawman in cold blood"? That few seconds hesitancy it bought threatened his and his sister's life. Simon was used to thinking of the Alliance as said good government and in his neighborhood, and for his class of society it usually was. Of course there was also the factor that he just did not like killing. But the fact that it was a lawman he was pointing a gun at made him hesitate more. And a few seconds can make a difference for a character accustomed to a good government suddenly finding himself having to deal with being on the lam.