Shattered Kingdoms

Terrible name for what you describe, and what you describe is essentially Scrup re-worded.

Chaotic Good: Aka, Robin Hood, openly flouts the law of the land, acting as brigands for the weak. The idea behind the Altruistic are more like... Good private investigators. They may bend the rules a bit, get the information they need to bring the law on the villain, but they'll rarely openly act against it. The laws are not all encompassing, and the Altruistic realize this, but they are necessary, and will uphold them when they can, not just when convenient.

Eh, I realize it all reads pretty much like scrupulous, but I'm at least offering up ideas. I'm not going to pretend what I'm writing up is what will go up to the Shattered Kingdoms, but I'm hoping to get the ball rolling. Refute my points, by all means, and hopefully build on your own rebuttals and come up with something better!

Edit: Yes, it's a terrible name for it, but this is entirely off the cusp, and I picked a goody two-shoe word for it. I'm terrible with names.

Well, the rebuttal is pretty simple. You didn't describe anything that would be considered inherently Altruistic, and therefore Altruist isn't an appropriate title for the alignment. Moreover, there's no sense in adding a third good alignment that already falls within the bounds of one of the existing two good alignments. If there's no feasible or reasonable way to include a third good alignment that is distinct from the already-extant good alignments, there's no reason to add a third alignment just for the sake of having one.

EDIT: On the subject of the title of the alignment again, SK already defines "good" as including heavy elements of altruism, and therefore an alignment specifically devoted to such is again already covered by the existing alignments.

Well, I did edit my original post with a 'Vigilante' style that is more Chaotic good, and actually feels more cohesive to me, but again, I urge y'all to write -something- up. I accept that the original idea isn't the best, never claimed it was, but the topic -is- a third good alignment, and I'm just throwing macaroni to a wall. Don't take the suggestions too seriously, come up with your own.

That's kind of why I said in my original post in this thread that I think the good alignments we already have cover the full spectrum of qualities that could be considered "good" in terms of SK. I really don't think there's a valid third good alignment description that can be arrived at, no matter how much macaroni you throw at a wall. Basically, I'm saying that my idea is "It ain't broke, no need to fix it" and am arguing from that standpoint.

This also is basically just a different way to describe the range provided by Scrup.

Is there really no good character to occupy the place between the extremes of Superman and Robin Hood? I think there is, but it would probably necessitate a bit of rewriting for scrupulous. I think the boundary of scrupulous was pushed out because there was otherwise no middle ground.

Its not a bad idea. Altruistic is closer to his description than other alignments. Like an aberrant person being honorable when the actual meaning is somewhere along the lines of a deviant. Doesn't have to be perfect.

I don't really think there is a valid middle ground between the two. One does good things and respects law whenever possible, one does good things and respects law when it doesn't get in the way of doing good things. That's really the only difference between the two good alignments in SK and in a broader sense between the different types of "good" in the general context as described by SK.