My Honest Opinion

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

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!

I agree that it's a big disad like most GURPS disads, but the problem is that Icelander's interpretation of extremeness makes the trait inconsistent both with the reputation it provides and with the examples of character archetypes that possess it. It sounds like the sort of interpretation that will give the Honest character a bad reputation, not a good one. Actually, it reminds me of this comic.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

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!

I mostly Agree.
But the reverse is also true : the disads should be interpreted in a way that keep the character gameable (assuming they fit the campaign).
They are extreme, pathological exaggerations, but if a disad, especially a relatively low cp one, ***is allowed by the GM*** on a character sheet, the PC must still be playable.
The disads must be a disad and seriously inconvenience the player, but if the logical consequence of an interpretation is that the character cannot be played at all, then the interpretation is probably wrong.
(Assuming once again that the disads is allowed in the specific game !)
A Paraplegic character probably cannot play in a mundane game where the players play triathlon contestants.
An Honest character probably cannot play in a mundane game involving an ocean 11 remake.

But if the GM say 'you can be gurps honest in my game', then the character must be playable.
A paraplegic character can walk around in the astral plane, even if the disads state "you cannot walk at all".
An honest soldier can do his duty. An honest (private) detective / journalist can investigate a mystery.
They will not break laws to do it (or not easily), they will advocate lawful way to reach the objective, they will even try to prevent blatant law breaking by party members, but it doesn't say that they can't adventure, or that they must antagonize the other players by making sure they are investigated and punished to the full extend of the law for any law breaking, however minor.
The gurps-honest player should not go out of his way to find obscure laws that would destroy his livehood, or dedicate his entire live to make sure everyone everywhere follow every laws everytime or get their lawful punishment.
As Vicky say, they have a mostly good reputation, they aren't usually found in a ditch beaten up by angry neighbors.

[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.

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Also, in any media I've seen, both characters routinely broke laws, but because the writers (and most viewers) don't really know much about law, it doesn't matter.
.

But they are perceived as honest in universe and those law breaking aren't significant for describing the in universe personnage !
The movie Battle of the Bulge action is near Bastogne, even if the Spanish mountain are visible in the background...

[Curmudgeon]

Just to throw my 5¢ piece in (it's the smallest contribution I can offer since 1¢ pieces were abolished), I'd add the following points, some perfectly reasonably extensions of the existing rules and some not:

First, I'd propose extending the rule about acting as though the laws of your own home are in force. When in a country other than your own, unless you have cause to believe otherwise, you will act as though the laws of your home were in force, reasoning that their laws will be broadly similar. I.E., even though you may realize that their laws for murder and manslaughter aren't going to be the same (possibly including where the line between the two is drawn), you'll assume that not doing things that would be murder or manslaughter back home should usually be enough to keep you out of trouble for those offences here. If you do have reason to believe that the laws will be radically different on a particular subject, an Honest person will attempt to find out what the new laws are. If he has Common Sense, he'll find out before he arrives there. Depending on the TL, that may mean going to the library before getting on the plane or it may mean finding out en route with your caravan.

Second, and I would say it's implicit in the disadvantage, you must follow the law but only to the best of your ability to comply and to the limits of your understanding of the law. You can be mistaken. For example, the law here was changed recently to allow businessmen to detain suspects who had previously shoplifted from their business on their return to that place of business. That was because of an incident where a business owner and his employees were charged with forcible confinement for doing so. They thought the law permitted them to, but the actual law was clear, if unknown to them. Any person may make an arrest for a summary offence (what Americans would call a citizen's arrest), at the time the offence is being committed. After it's been committed, it's an indictable offence and only a peace officer can make an arrest for those types of offences.

You can engage in sharp legal practices, especially if they've been upheld in court. For example, you could offer a contract to someone who may have erroneous beliefs about the implications of the actual terms of the contract and have no qualms about wriggling out of it because "there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no contract" as long as you didn't inquire about those misconceptions and there is no law prohibiting "wilful ignorance." You will also recognize that you can use legal defences such as "regulatory ignorance."

You are not obliged to do things the law does not require of you. I.E., you will report finding a dead body if the law requires you to; but you don't have to report having been robbed at gunpoint if the law doesn't require you to.

It is possible to be Honest in a dishonest way. For example, if you belong to a minority within a nation that has its own (unrecognized) legal code, you could have Honesty within that minority as an honest, law-abiding whatever according to the unrecognized legal code, and a negative Reputation as a law-breaker in the broader society.

As for keeping your word, that applies principally to your legally binding word. You will do your best to fulfil your contracts as written, for example. But if it becomes necessary, you'll just feel badly about not keeping your promise to attend your daughter's recital, especially if that promise comes into conflict with your legally binding word. On the other hand, if she paid you a dollar and had you write out a contract to attend this particular recital at this time on that date in this particular location, you've got an interesting dilemma.

EDIT: Custom may not be the same thing as law and where they aren't, you can be Honest without following customs that people think of as having legal force (when they, in fact, have no legal force).

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by 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.

If I recall Bwaps usually have Honest but they do not in fact keep every single law. They simply limit their lawbreaking to absolute necessity and when outsider's laws violate their religion.

[Crystalline_Entity]

Honesty has a self-control number doesn't it? The way I'd play it is that obnoxious person who reports you every single time you jaywalk (in jurisdictions where that's an offence) probably has a self-control number of "6 or less". That's the [-20] points mentioned upthread (if my maths is correct).

On the other hand, someone with it at "15 or less" would probably report you for serious crimes (murder, manslaughter, etc), but may just remind you politely on reaching the other side of the road that jaywalking was illegal in that country rather than reporting you. This is [-5] which is around the same as a minor Code of Honour.

[khorboth]

I presume I'm not unique in keeping a character sheet updated on myself. I have Honesty on there. It's a son-of-a-bitch. I also have Truthfulness, and it's sometimes hard to put a crowbar of separation between them, but I'll try.

My biggest complaint with Icelander's description of the GURPS honest person is about the attitude. He keeps saying things like "cheerfully" and "happily" and then going back to talking about compulsion. In Nazi Germany, to grab the cited example, the Honest person might be completely tortured and hate the fact that they felt compelled to go along with the laws. They might bend everything possible to go toward what they felt was the more moral direction WITHIN THE LAW. They might even try legal avenues to get said laws changed or any legal for of activism that could get changes made. They wouldn't break the laws, though, and they wouldn't encourage others to do so. When the trials came around, and retroactive laws came into effect (taking his word for it), the Honest person would await trial. Attitude would not necessarily be cheerful, but they would be compelled to do so. And to go to the gallows if so sentenced.

Someone with another disadvantage relating to a moral compass like sense of duty of code of honor might be able to override Honesty with that other disadvantage when the need arises. This would, however be extremely bothersome for the character. Probably both the small part of Honesty relating to that set of laws and a chunk of the character's sanity.

As for adventurers with Honesty... Well, most jurisdictions have laws allowing for citizens arrests, and prior to the 20th century they were widely used in rural areas. In lawless areas, civilians were routinely expected to mostly police themselves or to assist law enforcement.

When traveling to other countries, which I have done a few times, I have done a little bit of research on what major laws are different and what common legal mistakes are made by tourists from my country to theirs. I made a particular study of traffic laws when I intended to drive there.

In terms of the "tattle-tale" arguments, this is difficult. I have determined, for myself, that the best method of encouraging others to live "correctly" is to do so myself and thereby demonstrate that such a life can be lived well. Additionally, there are generally accepted excuses as upheld by the courts for breaking most laws and I sometimes can sometimes soothe my conscience by giving someone the benefit of the doubt that this is what is happening. Adding on the uselessness of reporting minor infractions to the police in actually gaining compliance means that I am not regularly reporting people. A few things I have done, however, include: driving the speed limit in the fast lane, insisting on only crossing streets at approved places when walking with my friends, putting polite notes on cars of people who have parked incorrectly, reporting people actively putting out fliers at the mall, and turning in coworkers for petty theft on a dozen occasions.

The biggest problem is contradictory laws. I'm not allowed to block the flow of traffic to drive the speed limit. I'm supposed to be alert for crime, but not allowed to loiter. In my state, I must have my blinker on for at least 100 feet before leaving a parking space. For several years, I solved this problem with alcoholism. I'm better now, but it's still a real problem feeling compelled to do two contradictory things.

I hope this helps some.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Icelander

We have other traits that are intended for honest, morally upright characters.* Those include Code of Honour, Pacifism: Cannot Harm Innocents, Sense of Duty or Vow.

GURPS Honesty is pretty unsuitable for the protagonist of any kind of adventure, as it makes is difficult to impossible for the characters to take matters into their own hands, as opposed to leaving them to properly constituted authorities.

It's perfectly suitable...in fact I'd say mandatory for any character who is a stand in for a D&D Paladin. It's not a problem for superheroes apart from issues associated with secret identities. In English Common Law settings you are allowed to rescue people and stop felonies just as long as you hang around to talk to the cops afterward. It works for actual cops.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

But they are perceived as honest in universe and those law breaking aren't significant for describing the in universe personnage !
The movie Battle of the Bulge action is near Bastogne, even if the Spanish mountain are visible in the background...

Sure. Which is why I noted that GURPS Honest might be a possible trait of protagonists in children's fiction or games with a similarly distant relationship with versimilitude, but didn't actually suit adventurers in any fiction set in world's where the law worked even remotely like the real world.

The sheer number of laws in a modern first world country means that it is functionally impossible to avoid breaking laws on a daily basis. Reasonable people distinguish between laws that actually matter and anyone cares about enforcing and the morass of laws that exist for other reasons.

Everyone who works for an international company, finance company, in a medical field, for a public institution or in any other of the hundreds of fields where legislators keep adding new laws which affect the field, cannot actually function without breaking dozens of laws each day. Even perfectly ordinary people routinely break laws every day without anyone noticing or caring, because laws are often badly worded and thought out, and what they literally say may not be what anyone intended or what anyone can actually enforce.

With the Internet, significant parts of the daily lives of people may actually occur in other jurisdictions. This makes it even more impossible to actually follow every law and even more necessary for psychologically healthy, actually functioning people to develop the facility to distinguishing between what may technically be written into law and what they actually should or should not do.

Having GURPS Honesty means that doing so requires a SC roll, which is going to fail on a regular basis. Even if the SC is 15, that's a whole lot of failures when you need to make a roll for every business transaction and, in some jobs, every email, minor decision or trivial interaction.

Which means that a GURPS Honest character are constantly taking action to 'do their best' to ensure that other people follow laws that are impossible to follow without breaking other laws, not to mention constantly turning themselves in for minor infractions.

And, really, while Hollywood scripwriters may believe that only minor legal snags exist for vigilantes, pointing excitedly at some romantic idea of citizen's arrests, the reality is that almost everything that adventure-fiction protagonists do is breaking one law or another.

For one thing, it doesn't matter how justified some act of self-defence or citizen's arrest may have been if you conceal any relevant facts from the police in the aftermath. Hell, just causing property damage and then concealing your identity from the insurers and the owner is breaking the law.

Superman breaks the law every time he lays hands on someone without then going through the requisite legal steps afterwards. It's no good stating that 'it would have been a valid citizen's arrest', because it isn't. Superman has never performed one in his life. Hell, he's an illegal alien whose life as Clark Kent is probably founded on felony fraud.