litphoria

I read it a few times and got a tiny bit confused - you want the last definition to be used, or something different but in the same spirit?
Because I generally agree with the notion, but would be easier to voice opinion while having one, specific description marked as the one to dispute over. Unless we are supposed to discuss which one would be better.

Yes the last quote is a decent definition. It could me modified by removing the last clause for brevity. The problem, though, with some of these Ethics choices, like this an especially 'Anarchy/Anarchist' is that you still have to go investigate on the internet, to figure out what ethics such a person would have, and in the case of Anarchist, you get a hodge-podge of contradictory systems with respect to ethics. Stoic is tighter, but also misleading, because people think they know what stoicism is all about, but they are only thinking of the outward attitudes, not the ethics. Personally, I'd just go with the three or four main ethical systems. In any case, I don't think it is something anyone will search on because they have to have a Stoic or Dutiful rper.

I like it, then, if we change to more typical style of 'A character who...'

'One who' is more succinct and means the same thing, and I did that to make the definition as short as possible, given its current length, but sure, I can do that if that is preferred. Is it critical to keep that same form?

Critical - no, but I feel like keeping the same format as much as possible on the site adds some legitimacy and more of a professional feel. The same reason why we have long debates about Interest description to keep all neat and tidy.

Edited the OP with the main recommendation of the post at the very top. Again, could leave off the second clause for brevity, but it makes the definition of a Stoic more complete.

From a perusal of Wikipedia, I think someone suggested their interpretation of most of the wikipedia Ethics categories, but squeezing the definitions down to one sentence from poor wikipedia entries was not effective. I had to dig for more info on Stoicism on the internet. The seconds clause means that only what is in the realm of the Stoic's choice, his will, is something that he controls and can fall under the heading of good or evil. That which is outside of his own will is not under his control. What you say to him is not in his control, but how he responds to you, is. He will not be disconcerted by someone's insults. Hoodlums calling him names will not draw his ire. If they physically attack, he may certainly choose to defend himself, but if Nature brings calamity, he does not rail against what he cannot affect.

Personally, I think Stoic, Anarcist, and others, as currently defined, are virtually useless. They are simply very incorrectly defined. I'm not even sure about the whole trait of Ethics being very useful. But I think the point is not necessarily provide something searchable in all cases, but help paint a character fully. If I don't look at the words only, and just think of the common understanding of Anarchist or Stoic, then it might have a use as a hint at personality, but as a framework for Ethics as a Trait? I already looked up Anarchist, and that is all over the map, and I'd have to do some more reading to figure out what ethics a Stoic holds. You aren't going to get it in a one-sentence description, though.

No, it does not mean that. It is actually the opposite. "Only in the will do the concepts of good or evil exist." is a re-phrasing of the Epictetus quote above.

Well, I don't have a problem getting rid of the entire Ethics trait, or simplifying it to the basic, widely accepted three or four categories. Yes, that would mean blowing away Anarchist (Anarchy is a misnomer in our naming scheme, anyway) and Stoic both, as well as Hedonism as well, though that is certainly more understandable than the first two. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which claims to be a peer-reviewed academic resource, only lists three main categories: Virtue theories, Duty theories, and Consequentialist theories, of which Utilitarianism is a sub-category. Hedonism, as well as altruism and egoism are all very briefly mentioned, but are not listed as categories of ethical systems. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't actually have more relevance to explaining character motivation than, "I'm a Consequentialist," without a run at Google. Of course this all would be a different suggestion that you should make.

There is also this proposition of reworking it, Anne, if you are interested in taking a look.

The thing that irritates me about Stoic is just that the definition is wrong, and I actually have a character I would like to describe as being a Stoic.

This is now moot with the ethics trait being removed. Closing.