Shattered Kingdoms

Paladins would not though, because they have to be disciplined in alignment, break any laws. No matter where they were. So, they cannot be Zealots.

Uh, yes, they can be. A paladin can go to the point of viewing the rules and laws of the gods as more important than man's own, since gods created men and are therefore more powerful/more true/less inclined to making laws for stupid reasons and petty things. A paladin would rather go to jail and face the consequences later, than let the laws his lord sets be broken by some shmuck. That's a zealot.

Edit: Ejemplo: I could very well see a Paladin of Dulrik who is a stickler for discipline, walk in on some people mudsexxing in the Plaza of the Feathered Dragon. After seeing such a sight, he could be come so incited to righteous anger at this horrid display of undisciplined behavior, that he smites everyone in the name of his lord - despite there being laws against murder.

double post...but I guess I'll use it...

The true disciplined one would sneer at them and walk away to get a constable. His discipline it's self would make sure he controlled his emotions and didn't fly into a rage.

...that example was a poor one.

righteous anger? smiting everyone in a frenzy of emotions? thats not very disciplined at all!

Paladins would be given the choice between the two then. Prinicipled and Zealot.

I think people are always looking for loop holes. A real prinicipled paladin wouldn't jump a deep-elf or a necromancer on sight. He would wait for him to attack an innocent or make undead. If he saw a known evil-doer he would peacefully ask him to leave. Violance would only be a last resort. Even if there must be violance he will wait to be attacked, wait to 'rescue' someone being attacked, or challange the evil-doer to a honorable duel. If he declined so be it.

The Zealot however would be the one to kill the evildoer on sight every time.

The scrupulous would be in the middle of these two.

Sorry, but there is no lawful neutral because .... there is no neutral. There is selfish, but a character regularly denying himself in favor of a law isn't selfish. Try aberrant.

Nor is there a chaotic good because good isn't chaotic; good-aligned characters value the greater good quite unrandomly. Their methods make them either principled or scrupulous, not their obedience to some law. (Consider how law-abiding a typical paladin would be in Krychire.)

Trying to interpet Palladium alignments in terms of D&D's law/good scheme doesn't work. You can play a principled priest that in D&D would be chaotic good. You can play a diabolic necromancer that in D&D would be lawful evil. Palladium alignment is about morals more than ideology.

This alignment isn't "true" neutral either. This alignment would be the more solely, exclusively concerned towards their own personal code of honor or the workings of _________. I would think the focus of this character is something more like focusing on "the one goal" that is not either good, or evil. This could be anything: it could be the defense of a city, it could be a vendetta against a nation or a group, it could be just making sure his family survives. In a sense,

It'd be something like:

1. Keep his word of honor.
2. Lie only for the sake of furthering his goal, or to protect it.
3. Will not kill an unarmed foe (but will take advantage of one if it furthers his goals).
4. Usually will only help those he cares for, but may help others in need.
5. Will not resort to torture unless it is a last resort to further his goal, or to protect it.
6. Work with others to attain his goals.
7. Never harm an innocent.
8. Never torture or kill for pleasure.
9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline and honor.
10. Never betray a friend.

Sort of like completely goal-oriented. The goal in general is usually something non-good/non-evil in nature.

I probably didn't put it very well. I'm thinking something like a secret service dude, who may not necessarily care about good or evil as long as the president (and most importantly the country) is alright.

So in other words nothingxs, your suggestion is that lawful neutral would be an obsessive compulsive with a conscience?

Obsessive compulsive? Kind of.

And it's not so much of a conscience as no real inclinations towards good or evil. It's more of "I live my life for my goal", which is a selfish stance. Bodyguards, henchmen, Justiciars -- that sort of thing -- are what mostly fall under this alignment.

Nothingxs, you're missing that the Palladium alignments aren't concerned with ideology as much as "niceness".

Principled characters aren't at the top of the goodness chart because of their goal, but because their morality and ethics force them to be relatively kind unless greatly provoked. They're safe to be with unless you insist on doing evil around them. Scrupulous characters are less kind, in that they'll be more proactive and harsher in stopping evil characters. Selfish characters are generally friendly, but may be unkind to anyone if they feel they need to be. And so on, down to diabolic characters which aren't safe for anyone to be with.

Let's take this goal-oriented character you propose. The question then becomes, how nice is his behavior in pursuit of this goal?

One can imagine a bodyguard or lawkeeper in a good realm who's concerned enough with his duty to risk a little undeserved harshness. But his support of his patron doesn't involve him in evil, and he's kind enough outside of his duty. This fits nicely with scrupulous, as do many of the items on your proposed alignment list.

One can imagine someone devoted to a semi-good, semi-selfish goal, such as protection of one's family above all. This fits nicely with the selfish alignments. Such a character may be goal-oriented, but he behaves just as ethically as a selfish character - a good neighbor unless his interests are threatened. And behavior is the important thing in our system.

One can also imagine characters whose devotion to duty causes them to do clearly evil things fairly regularly. The alignment that fits here is aberrant. This judgement may seem harsh. But, in the Palladium system's view, someone who does evil on principle is more dangerous than a selfish person who does evil only as his personal need forces him to. That's hard to argue with. Indeed, if we had less people playing selfish alignments as evil, it'd seem quite fair.

In short, the Palladium alignment system already covers us quite nicely if we think in terms of behavior rather than goals. Further, behavior-dependence is a strength of the system. We have enough arguments over in-game morality without trying to sort the relative worthiness of 1001 goals sought after with varying devotions.

Chaotic good means just that - your actions are somewhat chaotic in nature, but the result of those actions is for the greater good. I hate to use the popular example, but being the popular example it's perfect - Drizzt. Rushes into a fight with evil with relish - something a paladin would look down on, and is rather free spirited. Unlike a scrupulous person, a chaotic good person would NOT make a good leader, as they would prefer to go off on their own for fear of putting someone else in harm's way, not to mention working with others is hard because their fighting style is mainly improvisational.

Lawful neutral is basically your ideal inn bouncer - they'll keep the peace inside the inn where they're getting paid to do it, and make sure everything works smoothly in their assigned area, but just over the line they could care less what is going on unless they have some personal incentive to get involved. Won't kill someone outright unless it's 'within the law' to do so.