Alignment on three axes.

[pemerton]

Prima facie this is incontestably true - you might almost say "by definition" - but some of the more fascinating corners of current theory and experiment are actually finding circumstances where some aspects of "honour" are actually optimal in the economic sense. A rational theory of something like "honour" would be a really fun development

I have a colleague who over the past couple of years has started working on the philosophy of economics and rational choice, and is looking at this sort of thing.

I'm heavily influenced by Weber and Foucault in my sociological thinking, and hence am ultimately a little sceptical of rational choice theories of cultural forms that predate liberal market societies - I think they run the risk of being anachronistic - but its certainly an interesting research project!

 

[Starfox]

I can see where this is coming from in traditional alignment distinctions, but I don't think it can be right. Monks and paladins - the most lawful of characters - are not conformists. They stand out from the common herd in virtue of their discipline and resolution.

I see where you are coming with this from the earlier argument here, and respect that conclusion. I don't share it. But then, the conclusion of this discussion seems to be that there is no point of agreement about alignment on the law-chaos scale.

I have no problems with paladins as conformists, moderated by their desire for an overreaching greater good.

I always thought the idea of the monk as being lawful was kind of silly. Especially if you consider the "Chinese knight" and shaolin to be the models of a monk. Shaolin were persecuted for much of their history. And many martial arts styles began as tools of rebellion - Capoeira and Karate to mention two. I think the idea of monks being lawful comes from the general perception of classical Chinese morals all being lawful - which is an oversimplification.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yeah, and this was very confining. A thief had to steal which was probably the worst of them - I never played a 1E or 2E thief as an actual thief. Rogue is so much better as a descriptive term. Xp as role-play carrots and sticks is not a good idea, especially not if you didn't get to pick what role-playing code you want to play but get it as part of a class. At least you got to select your alignment (except if you were a ranger, paladin, monk, bard... ok, some got to freely select alignment). Some things HAVE improved since 1E.

I partially disagree. Yes, the way it was implemented was indeed confining, but that kind of XP system does very well when the players get to pick what sort of thing they want to pursue. Most recently, MHRP does it nicely and with a lot of depth and variety. The basic implementation there seems to be an evolution of something started with a game called The Shadow Of Yesterday. For a D&D-ish version, check out Sweet20 (which, AFAICT, never got past the XP system).

Thinking about it, I don't actually think this would be a big thing for D&D. I would argue that the basic traditional D&D XP systems are even more confining because all PCs have the same motivation. Which accidentally encourages the whole murder-hobo thing (Key of the Murder-Hobo?). IIRC, every edition since 1e has had some kind of "RP" or "story award" system that feebly attempts to mollify the whole murder-hobo trope. I've heard a few good reports about 4e's "Quest" system, which seems to have been the most effective (since at least some folks have found it helpful). So, in effect, D&D doesn't have a lot of motivation mechanics....just one BIG ONE!

I'd also like to point out that I wasn't arguing that this (XP rewards) was the best possible system, just that D&D had had such a thing in the past. (Maybe it is the best, but who knows?) There are other ways to model the same sorts of personality/morality things that alignment does such a poor job of. If D&D needs such a system (and I am far from convinced that it does), then it could easily adopt any of these other systems.

*As a rogue fan myself, I found 1e's automatic increases in thieving skills much more bizarre. (So I'm seventh level, never picked a pocket in my life, and yet can still do it alarmingly well?)