Topic: Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
Started by: BunniRabbi
Started on: 11/16/2010
Board: First Thoughts
On 11/16/2010 at 8:40pm, BunniRabbi wrote:
Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
I've been taking this philosophy class that has given me an idea for a morality system based, very loosely, on Aristotelian Morality. Essentially, Aristotle felt that every virtue was a balancing point between two vices. One was a vice of excess and one was a vice of deficiency. So, for instance, if Courage is a virtue, the vice of excess would be Recklessness, and the vice of deficiency would be Cowardice.
I'm thinking about having a list of virtues on a character sheet for a superhero game. When the character takes an action against that virtue it would move the marker for that virtue to the left or right, towards a vice. Keeping the marker on the virtue adds a bonus to certain rolls.
Towards this end I created a list of virtues and their associated vices. I tried to eliminate virtues that effectively duplicate each other or are completely covered by others. I'd like to see if there are any virtues I missed and if people agree with the associated vices.
Like so:
[table]
[tr][td]Virtue Vice of Deficiency Vice of Excess[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ambition[/td][td] Idleness[/td][td] Hubris [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Benevolence[/td][td] Malfeasance [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Valor[/td][td] Cowardice [/td][td]Recklessness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Conviction [/td][td]Passivity [/td][td] Rigidity[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Composure[/td][td] Hysteria [/td][td] Numbness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Compassion[/td][td] Apathy [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]*Contentment[/td][td] Avarice[/td][td] Indolence[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]*Detachment[/td][td] Obsession [/td][td]Acedia [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Discretion[/td][td] Ostentation [/td][td]Unintelligibility[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Forgiveness[/td][td] Vendetta[/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Fortitude [/td][td] Capitulation[/td][td] Masochism[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Friendliness[/td][td] Coldness [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Generosity[/td][td] Miserliness[/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Gentility [/td][td] Coarseness[/td][td] Effeminacy**[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Grace[/td][td] [/td][td] Pettiness [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Gratitude [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Honor [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hope [/td][td] Cynicism [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Humility [/td][td] Arrogance [/td][td]Martyrdom[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Idealism [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Integrity [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Justice[/td][td] Bias [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Liberalism***[/td][td] Dominance[/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Magnanimity [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Prudence [/td][td] Rashness[/td][td] Obsessiveness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Reverence [/td][td]Flippancy [/td][td] Sycophancy[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sincerity [/td][td]Pretentiousness[/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sobriety [/td][td] [/td][td] Humorlessness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tact [/td][td] Crudeness[/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tolerance [/td][td]Fascism[/td][td] Permissiveness[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Trust [/td][td] Paranoia [/td][td] Naiveté [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Zeal [/td][td] Insolence [/td][td] Obsession[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]*Are these separate concepts? [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]** I’d like to come up with a more gender-neutral synonym.[/td][/tr][/table]
[/td][/tr][/table]***The concept, not the political philosophy. [/td][/tr][/table]
On 11/16/2010 at 9:41pm, SortableBadger wrote:
Re: Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
I think that "martyrdom" could work as a vice of excess for a number of virtues. Compassion and generosity for example.
If you want this list on the character sheet, I would strongly suggest limiting the scope. What spectrum gets cut might be mostly arbitrary, but if you're looking for a superhero game you might want to consider limiting those with vices associated with villainy, or the exact opposite. That is, if a player goes too hard into a vice, they might not be a superhero anymore, which could have dramatic consequences. There are reasons for both including and excluding this potentiality.
On 11/17/2010 at 6:25am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
Hi,
When the character takes an action against that virtue it would move the marker for that virtue to the left or right, towards a vice. Keeping the marker on the virtue adds a bonus to certain rolls.
Probably seen dozens of posts along these lines over the years, which, surprisingly, treat what would break a virtue as being so cut and dried it's as much a rule as say, roll a D20, 15 or over passes.
I think such lists are pretty useless - to me they just seem to enable a GM to preach and enforce his own sense of morality or virtue at a table, but then claim he's studiously following the rules. And maybe he genuinely thinks he is just following rules. But in the end it's not, it's just preaching and enforcing. That's assuming who determines when an action goes against a virtue is the GM. Maybe you've got some other method in mind? Sorry to sound negative, but I think I'm describing actual inherent negative qualities in this, not just a preference on my part. Though if someone wanted to openly preach their morality and enforce it, hey, maybe that'd work out for some. But the whole 'I'm following the rules' when they aren't? Just seems dishonest play.
On 11/18/2010 at 1:10am, Jason Pitre wrote:
RE: Re: Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
Um, hi there. Looking for a game of Nicomanchean ethics? I kinda produced one for game-chef because I had the same brilliant idea myself. I hope you find it helpful.
http://www.genesisoflegend.com/PDF/A%20Sojourn%20in%20Alexandria.pdf
On 11/18/2010 at 5:40pm, BunniRabbi wrote:
RE: Re: Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
SortableBadger wrote:
I think that "martyrdom" could work as a vice of excess for a number of virtues. Compassion and generosity for example.
I tend to think that if properly formulated there shouldn't be any overlap. That will mean collapsing some of these into others, which should limit the number on the sheet.
SortableBadger wrote:
If you want this list on the character sheet, I would strongly suggest limiting the scope.
Once we've collapsed some into others the players will pick from the remaining, though I'm not sure how many each will have. Not all of them will be on the sheet.
With ref to Callan S> Yeah I've seen this done poorly before, but I'm also working on a term paper related to the subject of defining virtue, and this will be applied to it. Creating strong practical guidelines is the goal of both. That in mind, I acknowledge this can't be done to fit everyone's tastes, so the goal is defined along lines of internal consistency.
On 11/18/2010 at 5:51pm, epweissengruber wrote:
RE: Re: Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
Just a piece of advice for your game and your paper:
There are absolute goods in Aristotle's system that do not fit into the medium-between-two-extremes pattern.
The good life (eudemonia?) is an end in itself, to which humans must strive. Eudemonia is defined as an activity (an "energia"). So to live the good life is to undertake a kind of activity. Eudemonia is reached not by finding a medium between two extremes like "frantic" vs. "withdrawn" or "passive."
On 11/18/2010 at 9:09pm, BunniRabbi wrote:
RE: Re: Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
Erik wrote:
There are absolute goods in Aristotle's system that do not fit into the medium-between-two-extremes pattern.
Well, yes, that's part of where the two ideas diverge. Part of me wanted to find a way to put in Eudemonia, Arete, Praxis and a bunch of other related terms, but it ended up seeming too tacked-on. I still sort of want to make Arete a stat, but only because it was one in the first vision of Mage: The Ascension.
For the purposes of this system, if there isn't an associated pair of negatives then a trait isn't a virtue.
Taking another idea from White Wolf, I think that part of the game definition for a demonstration of a vice should be that the (in)action hurt someone or something, even if only abstractly. That clears up a little bit of the argument over what constitutes a vice mechanically. So for game purposes it's the "instance of a vice" that causes a deviation, not general possession of a vice. Some might argue that should be part of the definition outside of a game as well.
On 11/18/2010 at 10:16pm, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
That in mind, I acknowledge this can't be done to fit everyone's tastes, so the goal is defined along lines of internal consistency.
What's the value of internal consistancy just in itself? I mean, if every time you say 'red', I stamp on your foot, then I'm being very consistant. But I don't see the value in consistancy in itself? Is it that players can get that bonus die from reaching one end of the spectrum? In which case I'd check whether it's really consistant, because with some GM portraying a morality, it typically includes that the morality doesn't like to be gamed and will deliberately be inconsistant to punish someone for trying to game it. I guess its a consistancy that it'll be inconsistant to jam anyone trying to game the system, but if you can't approach it in a gamist style to get those bonus dice, again what's the value in having consistancy for it's own sake? Or is this the point where it's sim and I don't get it? If so, ok, fair enough.
On 11/19/2010 at 9:18pm, epweissengruber wrote:
Practical Advice for Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
Erik wrote:
The good life (eudemonia?) is an end in itself, to which humans must strive. Eudemonia is defined as an activity (an "energia"). So to live the good life is to undertake a kind of activity. Eudemonia is not reached by finding a medium between two extremes like "frantic" vs. "withdrawn" or "passive."
And it certainly isn't reached by adopting a quietistic or ascetic indifference to the world.
Here is actual input for a game:
A character who fails to put a virtue into practice cannot be considered to be living the good life.
Unless virtues are employed towards the implementation of some version of the good life, that virtue (in the sense of a power or capacity) will decay.
A person who does not undertake Compassionate deeds should not be permitted to use their "Psychic Empathy" power.
On 11/29/2010 at 9:01pm, BunniRabbi wrote:
RE: Re: Aristotelian Morality / Virtue list
The internal consistency is a best-fit compromise we'll need to accepted at some point, not a primary premise from which to proceed.
I like that approach Erik, mostly. The only problem is that it requires the GM to put in instances for the expression of each virtue for each character. That may not allow a lot of room for story, and I am trying to place this in a narrative game.
I appreciate the desire to go into the philosophy of this, but I'd really rather we discuss that in another thread. This thread was really meant for vetting the list above. Could we please keep it to that?