Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 8270399" data-attributes="member: 6796468">The Virtue Ethics comments made me consider 5e D&amp;D... and then look through the six &quot;Basic Rules&quot; Backgrounds.Acolyte, Criminal, Folk Hero, Noble, Sage, and Soldier.All but one of the Acolyte's Ideals is a Virtue. And even the one that isn't (Power) would be better written as Ambition, which is a Virtue.The Criminal that cares about only Greed isn't tied to a Virtue, but even the &quot;People&quot; one tied up in close friends touches on Companionship.The Folk Hero gets a single flatly evil one in &quot;Might&quot;. But the rest are Virtues.The Noble has four Virtues, a badly mangled idiom, and Noblisse Oblige. The latter two being Deontology rather than Virtues.Sage? No Limits could be reframed as &quot;Freedom&quot; for a Virtue, but only Power is openly evil.Soldiers have got Might as Evil, like the Folk Hero, but the rest? Virtues.... I really -do- think it's a matter of making Virtue Ethics a hidden core of D&amp;D's moral philosophy going forward rather than a directly presented deontology.And now I can't help but wonder if it's a move to placate the masses who complain about philosophy being a part of the game without taking out such a strong aspect of narrative..?+1For a lot of us who started D&amp;D early in life it created a baseline understanding of morality above and beyond our parents' deontological imperatives. &quot;Don't do that!&quot; &quot;Why?&quot; &quot;Because it's bad!&quot; &quot;Why?&quot; &quot;Because I said so!&quot;Well before I learned anything about the basis of morality morality in school or church I learned it from D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steampunkette, post: 8270399, member: 6796468"] The Virtue Ethics comments made me consider 5e D&D... and then look through the six "Basic Rules" Backgrounds. Acolyte, Criminal, Folk Hero, Noble, Sage, and Soldier. All but one of the Acolyte's Ideals is a Virtue. And even the one that isn't (Power) would be better written as Ambition, which is a Virtue. The Criminal that cares about only Greed isn't tied to a Virtue, but even the "People" one tied up in close friends touches on Companionship. The Folk Hero gets a single flatly evil one in "Might". But the rest are Virtues. The Noble has four Virtues, a badly mangled idiom, and Noblisse Oblige. The latter two being Deontology rather than Virtues. Sage? No Limits could be reframed as "Freedom" for a Virtue, but only Power is openly evil. Soldiers have got Might as Evil, like the Folk Hero, but the rest? Virtues. ... I really -do- think it's a matter of making Virtue Ethics a hidden core of D&D's moral philosophy going forward rather than a directly presented deontology. And now I can't help but wonder if it's a move to placate the masses who complain about philosophy being a part of the game without taking out such a strong aspect of narrative..? +1 For a lot of us who started D&D early in life it created a baseline understanding of morality above and beyond our parents' deontological imperatives. "Don't do that!" "Why?" "Because it's bad!" "Why?" "Because I said so!" Well before I learned anything about the basis of morality morality in school or church I learned it from D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification