I think the best way to simplify alignment is to ignore it like hair color, it exists and if a class demands red hair you better have red hair.
You may tell your GM that your proposed system is what your character believes to be the model of morality and he should make sure you stick to your ethic as set by yourself. Maybe your model is the gold standard in your setting and it'd probably work quite well. I'm no sociologist but having a culture follow the same ethos seems reasonable enough. After all, who would accept someone who is a morally bad person, according to their standards, into their society?
A lawful character follows his laws first which might say that he has respect the law of other regions. Pathfinder's alignment seems to deal with internal and external morality meaning that good and evil is defined in your head while laws are defined by law makers.
I'm of the belief that True Neutral is Grand-master Monk neutral, which is why I think that the lawful requirement on monks is absurd, while your average citizen is NG or NE. When everything is nothing and nothingness is perfect what do laws and morality have to do with ultimate reality? Of course not all monks could leave their worldy consciousness behind so they took up in monasteries and did work like smithing (citation needed). Shifting the scale to put average citizens on True Neutral could work but it would just be a mathematical translation. Its like calling dogs cats. For all intents and purposes, cat means dog but its still a dog at the end of the day. I think society's average alignment speaks leagues about what societies can accomplish. Rather than Chaotic Neutral barbarians, society has adopted a lawful and moral conscious. Whether people adhere to it is their choice and their consequences for doing so and not. The question I'm asking is why would you diminish years of progress by calling it neutral?
I think PFs alignment system is fine, its not anymore complicated than actual morality. Its rather simple actually, not so messy, and to further simplify it would be to ignore it. The alignment system, while general in design, is probably what Golarion's philosophers have designed over many years of debating. Isn't breaking the law wrong? Isn't wrong doing evil? If you answered Yes then It Depends, then you are following Pathfinder's alignment model. If you answered Yes and Yes then you are following a spectrum model, one defined by your own ethics.
A spectrum is probably the simplest you could get for an alignment system in Pathfinder. Law Good is one end with Chaotic Evil on the other otherwise you are just stuck with the two axis thing again. Its a model that doesn't really hold up but its simple.
That's where you have you me stumped, aren't absolutism and law interchangeable? Same with chaos and relativism. You can certainly change the wording of alignments I just don't see the utility. Maybe you see Lawful Good Paladins as overly lawful but we call that Lawful Stupid. A Paladin is an absolutist but he isn't Judge Dread, he tempers his enforcement of the law with good. Hell Knights are probably your Judge Dread Lawful Stupid types but that's their shtick.
Those nine 2-word descriptions are the result of charting two unchanging aspects of morality. One axis is law and chaos and the other is good and evil, when you cross them you get nine alignments.
I'm pretty sure most people are Neutral in regards to the law because most will break the law if it goes against their personal ethic though they're not chaotic as most don't actively break the law in the name of chaos. You also get the whole "Do you obey the law because of principle or fear of punishment?" I don't see how speeding is relative because believing its not wrong does not justify the action. For most speed limits are an annoyance, not an affront to their right to drive. Knowingly breaking the law is what makes people neutral. The reason people aren't true neutral is because most do something to help those in need rather than further harm the victim or ignore him.
I hope this dive into alignment has been an enlightening experience for you, after all, the unexamined life is not worth living.
Well part of the paladin code is to break evil laws but hell knights wouldn't. In that case replacing law with Absolutism shouldn't be a problem and it does explain why paladins aren't Lawful Stupid. Relativism still doesn't hold up unless your definition of relativism is different than mine. Some people chose to break the law and understand the risk, doesn't seem too relative to me. Relative seems more like neutral than the opposite of absolutism.
I tend to think that specific faction systems give characters more of a real sense of "alignment" than the alignment system as such. The classic Planescape setting was very good for this, as the factions were not just based on the alignment axis, but on specific philosophies and relationships to the setting and lore. Being a member of The Fraternity of Order or Mercykillers meant something much more specific than, say, just being lawful neutral.
I think if "morality matters" is going to be a thing for gaming, then it should account for "grey morality" and just the fact that there are a lot of overlapping moral angles on different things from different perspectives. It can be nice for a setting or world to have such a feel - a sort of quasi-realism about belief and conflict.
The person fighting against a group that they think is wrong certainly thinks they are good. But from another group's perspective, they are bad. From a 3rd, more pragmatic group's perspective, they may have no personal or moral investment in the former two's conflict at all and have their own separate concerns. They're "neutral", but "neutral" is relative here - everyone can be "neutral" relative to certain things. "Good Group A" might not be the ones to fight their fight either.
This is where alignment breaks down, because things start to look more like a clash between subjective beliefs and cultures, descriptively or at the meta level.
Law and Chaos make sense like Good and Evil but one person's "lawful good" can possibly become another person's "lawful evil". There are also different interpretations of Law, and different ways of approaching it - as either a self-discipline or personal code (introverted/follower), something to be enforced on others (extroverted/leader), in a political sense (representing the government's law and power or support for the government's law and power, which varies by region and culture), in a religious sense (representing religious law), or more as a personality trait (rigid or stern). "Chaos" can mean valuing personal freedom. Or a free spirited, whimsical personality trait. Or "crazy". Or "nature lover". It can really mean anything from being a murder hobo to being a noble savage to being a heroic freedom fighter.
Perspectives and factional tendencies can be based on a lot more than just good vs. evil. Nature vs. Man or Machine, "civil" vs "uncivil" undead, religion vs. anti-religion, cults and religious conflicts, secret societies and honor codes, political intrigue, blood fueds, tribal warfare, conflicts within evil groups, organizations that are sometimes forced to be morally neutral or grey for a greater cause (like the Grey Wardens in Dragon Age), are all possible twists on things.
Ultimately, what's important is your character's background and beliefs. The alignment system is just an oversimplistic summary of that.
Here is the way I rule on Alignment in my campaign. I ask the player what alignment they are. They tell me and I write it down on my DM's sheet, however next to it I record the way they are actually playing their character next to it (in my opinion). As long as they are not playing a very restrictive class such as a paladin that is pretty much where the discussion on the issue ends.
My interpretation of the Alignment system:
1) It is not a tangible force.
2) It can not be targeted nor detected by magic.
Lawful vs Chaotic Axis
Chaotic is much more "self centered", selfish, ego centeric, or even narcissistic. This however does not have to carry an overly negative connotation as many artists look at the world through their own interpretation of what they personally value, which the rest of the world might not care less about.
The chaotic is not about good or evil, but rather about how they personally feel or value the events and people in the world around them. They do not go to war because their local Lord has ordered them to do so, but rather because their friends have gone to war and their homeland is in danger, both of which they care greatly about. For the chaotic it is very much about the personal value that they place on anything. For some they love their freedom, for others it is their family, and for others still it is the opportunity to simply prove they are the strongest / best at what they do! etc etc.
Neutrals under this interpretation are a hard match and could more easily be thought of as self serving. Yes I'll bend the knee to my lord so long as it means he isn't watching every move i make! They look at the laws of the land, and personal honor both, from the stand point that "I live here too" and thus rules are good to maintain order. Yes, keep your word of honor (but be very reluctant to give it), and obey the rule of your local Lord, however if the local Lord gets out of line you might just move away or find quiet ways to subvert his more outrageous orders. After all, if the rules aren't making life better for everyone, they aren't of much value.
The Good vs Evil Axis
Neutral really comes down to "why should I care"? "Soldier, that village is infected with a plague, go burn it down. Wow...sir that sucks! Can i just shoot flaming arrows into it so I don't get infected too?" They would not burn down the village out of malice because they know that to be "evil" which they are not, however neither are they "good" to such an extent that they'd risk catching the plague themselves.
LN would most likely simply follow the orders he was given, because in his world he was not responsible for his actions, his commanding officer was. Besides if he didn't follow those orders the commanding officer would have simply told someone else to do it and then punished the first soldier for insubordination.
CN would look at it definitely as a "why do i care"? Is there anyone there I know, or call friend, or otherwise have an invested interest in? No = no personal value to the CN and thus they would launch the attack without a care. Yes = Hold up there Commander, a man there still owes me money! If you want the loyalty of a CN you have to give them a reason to actually care, or they most likely won't.
Evil are one of the easiest really and it simply comes down to the question of, "Did I get mine?" Help the pretty girl out of the dungeon instead of letting the monsters eat her? Sure...IF the monsters don't offer a better deal, or isn't really big and scary and would cause you to risk your own neck if you did so. IF the pretty girl has a high bounty on her head to be returned to her family alive, IF the pretty girl is offering to sleep with her rescuer. ETC
In any of those cases all bets are off. Save the girl, sure...but in some way you are getting yours in the bargain. Oh and maybe along the way you figure out that the reward promised for her return is simply not enough to give up your new girlfriend, so you keep both the girl and the money for her rescue because you got yours in the end what difference did it make?
If you really want the cooperation of an evil character you will always need an "edge" in dealing with them. You have something they want, and in order to get it they have to keep their end of the bargain. Maybe it is money, a magic item, a lucrative contract to build the new castle, etc.
Another issue to consider when dealing with evil is they tend to truly only value strength. If they feel they are strong enough to simply take it from you, they are almost certainly going to try.
Evil is easy to see, just watch any episode of Game of Thrones. It is full of self serving individuals who are willing to hurt, kill and take from others in order to get whatever they want. All the while preparing to betray each other in the process. "But that other guy would have done it to me anyway!" is the mantra of the evil character.
How do other stats effect alignment? Most don't consider this one...but they should!
Intelligence - does the guy understand the loop holes of the offer, promise, vow or agreement? "Baby we are wed until death due us part!" in a world with Raise Dead has a VERY different meaning.
Charisma - is the dude a jerk or a generally nice guy? It is VERY possible to play a lawful evil with a high charisma. Think of a James Bond type of character...no not that one, rather the one that James trusts all the way through the movie until he double crosses him in at the end of the show. The high charisma lawful evil might even feel bad about betraying his friend (he is lawful after all) however ultimately it was his job to see to it that the kings daughter was NOT rescued but in fact died in such a way to make it look like it was the fault of the kings enemies. Ya gotta start that civil war SOME way!
Because if there's one thing the alignment system needs, it's even more oversimplication. X D
You know what's a lot simpler than the current system?