JayC wrote:
The false premise here is that SK's alignment system is a scale from most good to most evil, with principled and diabolical the two extremes. While there is difference between the good, neutral and evil alignments that seems to be a difference of lawfulness and predictability like AD&D's system and not a difference of goodness.
The principled alignment isn't more good than the scrupulous one, it is simply more lawful. In regards to the usual [faction] rp, it would be harder to control an alignment like scrupulous which is very close to neutral good/chaotic good from disobeying orders and attacking evil alignments than a principled lawful character that will refuse to aid evil but will probably not disobey orders and do it anyway, probably finding other peaceful ways to stop any aid to evil.
This is flat out wrong. Shattered Kingdoms uses the Palladium alignment system. It was made in objection to the ruleset of good vs evil, and law vs chaos. Principled characters are more "good" than scrupulous because you can stretch the scrupulous alignment pretty far. Things that a principled character might object to like torture and genocide could be par for the course for a scrupulous guy. The only possible exception I can think of is a principled elf promoting genocide against deep-elves for their deeply held immorality.