My Honest Opinion

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Icelander

No, it doesn't.

GURPS Honesty is a pathological belief in an external authority as a source of immutatable ethical law. It represents the complete abrogation of personal integrity, morality or honour and the replacement of personal judgment with an appeal to established authority. The ethical position of someone with GURPS Honesty is that everyone should follow the rules set by the ruling political elite in any given polity.

Someone who has GURPS Honesty may lie, cheat, murder and steal, as long as it is always done within the strict letter of the law whereever he happens to be. In fact, someone with GURPS Honesty can deliberately choose a jurisdiction to carry out a dishonest piece of business based on its laxity when it comes to whatever immorality the character feels like committing.

Adolf Eichmann probably serves as the best examplar of a character with GURPS Honesty.

You're hyperbolizing something fierce. First of all, Eichmann wasn't operating within the constraints of the law. He was part of a regime that felt free to ignore the law as written and did. And it is not true that an Honest man can cheat as long it is done within the strict letter of the law. Honest men are bound to live up to their promises regardless of the law. (Pro Hint: Don't make promises the fulfillment of which would violate the law.)

What's more it is both wrong and unfair to characterize Honest as "a pathological belief in an external authority as a source of immutable ethical law." Nothing prevents an Honest person from working to change a law it considers unjust by lawful means. An Honest person is usually not a rebel (although they [I]can[I] rebel to restore a previous status they consider more legitimate) but they are free (as far as Honesty goes) to be a reformer or a martyr.

That being said, you certainly can be an Honest villain who makes the most of any opportunity the law gives them to be cruel and oppressive, or just do what the law requires. You can be Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good so to speak.

Murder is, of course, a legal term as well as an ethical one. It's that first one that the GURPS Honest character needs to care about. In a jurisdiction where certain minorities don't have basic human rights, nothing prevents him from killing them in a way that is nothing short of murder, ethically.

More accurately Honest doesn't keep him from doing that. But Honest doesn't define a character's entire sense of right and wrong. He has to actually want to kill those minorities in the first place.

That means that he'll go out of his way to turn subjugated minorities in to their persecutors when he visits countries where homosexuality or certain religions are punishable offences, but one plane ride later, he'll be turning anyone who agrees with the religious police he was helping in for hate speech.

It means no such thing. One fulfills the requirements of Honesty quite adequately by simply attempting to persuade criminals to not break the law.

Someone with GURPS Honesty would have cheerfully enforced the laws of Nazi Germany before making a full confession at Nuremberg and demanded to be hanged the moment the Allies retroactively made his actions illegal. He couldn't help it, compulsion.

Actually the Geneva Convention existed before Nuremberg. When laws conflict an Honest person must decide which law holds more legitimacy. And the things war criminals were hanged for were not things the Nazis actually formally legalized.

Hmm... actually, considering that the Internet is a worldwide publishing platform, it is very likely that any character with GURPS Honesty who is active on social media has to start his visit to many countries by turning himself in for illegal speech, as he is very likely to have posted something against the law in the new jurisdiction.

Nope. Legal in the jurisdiction where the act was committed. The Honest person did not transmit the illegal sentiments into the place where they were illegal.

GURPS Honesty, as written, represents the deep-seated belief that morality is defined by the whims of whoever has the authority to make laws where ever the character is located and that he should proactively help them enforce that morality

,

No. It isn't. It's the belief that even when a law is wrong, it's also wrong to break it. That's not the same thing as thinking the law isn't wrong. As mentioned working to change the law within the system is always an option and in the opinion of the Honest person a better one. And no, it doesn't require you to inform on everyone else. It requires you to try to persuade everyone else.

[Icelander]

Doing your best to make others obey the law obviously includes notifying police when others are breaking the law. Just telling someone that by being flagrantly homosexual or believing in the wrong things they are persisting in not obeying the law isn't doing your best when a single phone call can bring legal authorities to stop their terrible law breaking.

And GURPS Honest characters explicitly may lie as long as their lies are technically legal. With careful attention to fraud statues where they are, they can absolutely cheat and steal, as long as they take care to do it in jurisdictions without robust business legislation.

Nazi judges and jurists at Nuremberg were convicted for passing laws and enforcing them inside Germany. Nothing in the Geneva Conventions or any other international treaty even remotely covered their actions, and, in fact, many of the convictions were based on alleged 'natural law', i.e. retroactively stating that things the victors found immoral were illegal, despite no such criminal statues having existed at the time of the offences.

To a GURPS Honest character, their actions were mandatory until the Nuremberg court found differently, at which time they retroactively became forbidden and required him to turn himself in.

[Anthony]

Hrr... the original point that "GURPS Honesty isn't Honesty" is is pretty accurate, the everyday meaning of the term is pretty much a combination of truthful and an appropriate code of honor. However, it doesn't amount to pathological law obedience, in part because Honesty also seems to include an aspected Gullible so you're really bad at getting other people to obey the law.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Hrr... the original point that "GURPS Honesty isn't Honesty" is is pretty accurate, the everyday meaning of the term is pretty much a combination of truthful and an appropriate code of honor. However, it doesn't amount to pathological law obedience, in part because Honesty also seems to include an aspected Gullible so you're really bad at getting other people to obey the law.

Well, an IQ check will suceed about 50% of the time, so a GURPS Honest character might miss half of all lawbreakers, serious or otherwise. On the other hand, as the character will report even many 'crimes' that any reasonable informer would ignore, his volume will be extemely high.

I quite agree that a GURPS Honest character is not the ideal informer, but then again, prolific informers usually have mental Disadvantages of some sort anyway.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Doing your best to make others obey the law obviously includes notifying police when others are breaking the law..
.

No. It doesn't. If Honesty was intended to do that it wouldn't give a +1 reaction bonus. That bonus is based on you being a trustworthy person, someone who can relied upon to fulfill their promises but that doesn't work if you're the untrustworthy bane of everyone's existence. Calling cops on people isn't doing your best to get them to obey the law. It's just trying to get them punished for not obeying the law after the fact which is something different.

And GURPS Honest characters explicitly may lie as long as their lies are technically legal. With careful attention to fraud statues where they are, they can absolutely cheat and steal, as long as they take care to do it in jurisdictions without robust business legislation.

Honest characters may lie. They can say "I am definitely Clark Kent and not Superman. Superman doesn't need glasses!". They may not break promises. Anything they contract to do, verbally or in writing is something they must do.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No. It doesn't. If Honesty was intended to do that it wouldn't give a +1 reaction bonus. That bonus is based on you being a trustworthy person, someone who can relied upon to fulfill their promises but that doesn't work if you're the untrustworthy bane of everyone's existence. Calling cops on people isn't doing your best to get them to obey the law. It's just trying to get them punished for not obeying the law after the fact which is something different.

The police enforce laws. If someone is breaking the law, informing the police is a pretty easy step toward stopping that. Stopping people from breaking the law is part of doing your best to ensure that others obey the law.

If a character is expected to 'do their best', it means more than just stating their preference without being willing to actually do anything to stop others from breaking the law. A non-violent or physically weak character might not be expected to attack those who break the law, but someone who has a reasonable expectation of winning would. And as long as the character is physically capable of notifying the authorities, it would require some weird interpretation of 'doing their best' if obtaining aid from the authorities were excluded from the things the character is expected to do.

The reaction bonus is for sharing the values and prejudices of the society. In a society where the laws are respected, the majority may respect the GURPS Honest character. In a society where the law is feared, people may be terrified of the GURPS Honest character. Game effect is the same, they are more likely to give him what he wants, because he is on the side of the entrenched authorities and the powerful elites.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Honest characters may lie. They can say "I am definitely Clark Kent and not Superman. Superman doesn't need glasses!". They may not break promises. Anything they contract to do, verbally or in writing is something they must do.

Sure. But they only have to deliver what they literally promised, not what the other person believes that they promised. They can have deceived the other party about the value of what the promised, as long as such deception is not against the law.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The police enforce laws. If someone is breaking the law, informing the police is a pretty easy step toward stopping that.

Is it? Unless it's a really serious crime, no it isn't. Going to the cops to complain about your victims solicitation of prostitutes, violation of sodomy laws, littering and rolling stops won't get them to change their ways but it will get them to stop associating with Compulsive Tattletale. Ratting out someone planning a murder or a casino robbery...yeah I can see that particularly when the cops can interfere before the job. Strange though it is to say, it is a bad idea to offer Honest characters membership in a major criminal conspiracy.

Sure. But they only have to deliver what they literally promised, not what the other person believes that they promised. They can have deceived the other party about the value of what the promised, as long as such deception is not against the law.

Only to a limited extent. They could sell Rorex watches in a place where counterfeiting Rolexes isn't against the law, but they would have to just describe them as "watches" because promising to sell them a Rolex and not delivering on that promise would be disHonest. They'd have to let their customers fool themselves...or just buy a watch knowing it's fake but other people will have trouble telling from a distance.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

You're hyperbolizing something fierce. First of all, Eichmann wasn't operating within the constraints of the law. He was part of a regime that felt free to ignore the law as written and did. And it is not true that an Honest man can cheat as long it is done within the strict letter of the law. Honest men are bound to live up to their promises regardless of the law. (Pro Hint: Don't make promises the fulfillment of which would violate the law.)

What's more it is both wrong and unfair to characterize Honest as "a pathological belief in an external authority as a source of immutable ethical law." Nothing prevents an Honest person from working to change a law it considers unjust by lawful means. An Honest person is usually not a rebel (although they [I]can[I] rebel to restore a previous status they consider more legitimate) but they are free (as far as Honesty goes) to be a reformer or a martyr.

That being said, you certainly can be an Honest villain who makes the most of any opportunity the law gives them to be cruel and oppressive, or just do what the law requires. You can be Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good so to speak.



More accurately Honest doesn't keep him from doing that. But Honest doesn't define a character's entire sense of right and wrong. He has to actually want to kill those minorities in the first place.



It means no such thing. One fulfills the requirements of Honesty quite adequately by simply attempting to persuade criminals to not break the law.



Actually the Geneva Convention existed before Nuremberg. When laws conflict an Honest person must decide which law holds more legitimacy. And the things war criminals were hanged for were not things the Nazis actually formally legalized.



Nope. Legal in the jurisdiction where the act was committed. The Honest person did not transmit the illegal sentiments into the place where they were illegal.

,

No. It isn't. It's the belief that even when a law is wrong, it's also wrong to break it. That's not the same thing as thinking the law isn't wrong. As mentioned working to change the law within the system is always an option and in the opinion of the Honest person a better one. And no, it doesn't require you to inform on everyone else. It requires you to try to persuade n everyone else.

Eichmann was disembling. He was definitely not in the same position as a random Landser grabbed to take part in a death squad. Such a man is in a position so compromised by his context that he may well deserve a spot at Yad Vashem just for refusing. Eichmann however was at least a slimy careerist doing what his boss wanted-if not an enthusiastic Nazi himself(which some later appraisals of Eichmann make a more likely estimate). And his boss wanted him to do atrocities so doing atrocities satisfied his ambitions which was what he was interested in. Aside from the fact that he considered it a splendid sacrifice to massacre helpless people while other Germans were kind of, being massacred by not helpless people. In other words he was the worst kind of garrittrooper. The difference is so great that he really has no right to make the Just Following Orders claim assuming someone else does. He just groveled before Hitler when Hitler was strong and groveled before the hangman when the hangman was strong and the interviewer bought it. But the fact is he was going out of his way to please anyone who had a hold of him and not just automatically obeying orders.

Whether that really counts as Honest, I don't know. Perhaps if you make a point of it. But I should think an Honest person really is JUST following orders if indeed he follows orders like that, and he is not doing the sorts of things that get you promoted into a position where you can follow orders like that all the more efficiently.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Is it? Unless it's a really serious crime, no it isn't. Going to the cops to complain about your victims solicitation of prostitutes, violation of sodomy laws, littering and rolling stops won't get them to change their ways but it will get them to stop associating with Compulsive Tattletale. Ratting out someone planning a murder or a casino robbery...yeah I can see that particularly when the cops can interfere before the job

GURPS Honest is a compulsion. It interferes with the ability of the character to distinguish between serious crimes and the innumerable technical violations of laws that normal people engage in as part of normal life. It also comes bundled with a delusion, that other people also have this compulsion. GURPS Honest characters might very well believe that upon being arrested and punished for their 'crimes', people will be grateful for the opportunity. After all, whenever they break one law to prevent other lawbreaking, they themselves joyfully turn themselves in.

Besides, if lawbreakers are punished, it will usually interfere with their opportunity to break further laws. It might be immoral to execute members of ethnic or religious minorities, but it cannot be argued that it doesn't effectively stop them from continuing to be members of illegal groups. If someone is imprisoned and bankrupt because he solicitated prostitutes, it will make it hard for him to do it again, if only because they are too poor to afford even the few packets of cigarettes required.* And jailing litterers is going to make it hard for them to litter again, because prison guards really frown on that.

Reasonable people might doubt that there is any purpose in enforcing laws which legislate morality, where there are no victims other than the outrage of the majority using the machinery of the state to impose their morality upon others, but GURPS Honest people are not reasonable people. By definition, they are compelled to follow laws. In the absence of special circumstances or a legal position which requires confidentality, GURPS Honest characters will follow laws that state that if they are witnesses to a crime, they must inform the appopriate authorities.

*They might be turned out themselves, but that's a different matter and, in any case, in many jurisdictions, they wouldn't be the ones committing a crime in that case. So it's all good to the GURPS Honest character.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Only to a limited extent. They could sell Rorex watches in a place where counterfeiting Rolexes isn't against the law, but they would have to just describe them as "watches" because promising to sell them a Rolex and not delivering on that promise would be disHonest. They'd have to let their customers fool themselves...or just buy a watch knowing it's fake but other people will have trouble telling from a distance.

Antitrust laws are a lot more recent than stock markets. In the vast majority of historical and even some current jurisdictions, a character may promise a certain number of stock certificates and deliver them, all right, but lie through his teeth about the value of the company. Nothing illegal about it.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Icelander

GURPS Honest is a compulsion. It interferes with the ability of the character to distinguish between serious crimes and the innumerable technical violations of laws that normal people engage in as part of normal life. It also comes bundled with a delusion, that other people also have this compulsion. GURPS Honest characters might very well believe that upon being arrested and punished for their 'crimes', people will be grateful for the opportunity. After all, whenever they break one law to prevent other lawbreaking, they themselves joyfully turn themselves in.

Besides, if lawbreakers are punished, it will usually interfere with their opportunity to break further laws. It might be immoral to execute members of ethnic or religious minorities, but it cannot be argued that it doesn't effectively stop them from continuing to be members of illegal groups. If someone is imprisoned and bankrupt because he solicitated prostitutes, it will make it hard for him to do it again, if only because they are too poor to afford even the few packets of cigarettes required.* And jailing litterers is going to make it hard for them to litter again, because prison guards really frown on that.

Reasonable people might doubt that there is any purpose in enforcing laws which legislate morality, where there are no victims other than the outrage of the majority using the machinery of the state to impose their morality upon others, but GURPS Honest people are not reasonable people. By definition, they are compelled to follow laws. In the absence of special circumstances or a legal position which requires confidentality, GURPS Honest characters will follow laws that state that if they are witnesses to a crime, they must inform the appopriate authorities.

*They might be turned out themselves, but that's a different matter and, in any case, in many jurisdictions, they wouldn't be the ones committing a crime in that case. So it's all good to the GURPS Honest character.


Antitrust laws are a lot more recent than stock markets. In the vast majority of historical and even some current jurisdictions, a character may promise a certain number of stock certificates and deliver them, all right, but lie through his teeth about the value of the company. Nothing illegal about it.

Whether there are victims is an ambiguous point. Aside from the fact that it is not determined whether society can be a corporate victim-and not only is it possible to sue corporations and be sued by them but crimes against officers of the law are aggravated by being crimes against society and treason is a crime in almost all sovereignities. Soliciting prostitutes is in some contexts being an accessory to rape. Littering discourages customers from business establishments in the area and therefore can be interpreted as theft. And(to make a point of it)being part of an unpopular religious minority is a temptation to The Faithful and imperil's their souls. The last point is repugnant to liberal society but has to be acknowledged to show how difficult defining victimhood is. I am not arguing, "There should be heresy laws" I am pointing out that "If I was to argue for heresy laws here is how I would do it".

Or what if someone is court-martialed for cowardice under fire? Everyone knows that the army can spare one man. But everyone equally knows that panic is contagious and a rout is detrimental to the lives of anyone in the army and anyone they happen to be protecting.

Likewise antitrust laws have ambiguous victim status. Who is hurt by someone owning something? Unless it hurts the market generally. Which is the same argument in macrocosm for litter laws.

Furthermore the Honest person can say that laws are decided above his pay grade without being irrational. Indeed it would hardly be rational for me to claim competency to decide more then a small proportion of the law. Which is an argument for the proposal that perpetual lawdump is a way of gaining oligarchy by fogging society but that would be for gen chat.